Bishop Strips Abortion Hospital of Catholic Status!

Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix has stripped St. Joseph’s Medical Center of its status as a Catholic institution.

The decision was announced Tuesday at a press conference in Phoenix. The following is the statement released by the Diocese of Phoenix in the wake of the announcement:

St. Joseph’s Hospital no longer Catholic

Statement of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted

December 21, 2010

Jesus says (Cf. Mt 25:40), “Whatever you did for the least of my brothers and sisters, you did for me.”

Caring for the sick is an essential part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Throughout our history, the Church has provided great care and love to those in need. With the advent of Catholic hospitals, the faithful could also be confident that they were able to receive quality health care according to the teachings of the Church.

Authentic Catholic care in the institutions of Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) in the Diocese of Phoenix has been a topic of discussion between CHW and me from the time of our initial meeting nearly seven years ago.

At that first meeting, I learned that CHW already did not comply with the ethical teachings of the Church at Chandler Regional Hospital. The moral guide for Hospitals and Healthcare Institutions is spelled out in what are called the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I objected strongly to CHW’s lack of compliance with these directives, and told CHW leaders that this constituted cooperation in evil that must be corrected; because if a healthcare entity wishes to call itself Catholic (as in “Catholic” Healthcare West), it needs to adhere to the teachings of the Church in all of its institutions. In all my seven years as Bishop of Phoenix, I have continued to insist that this scandalous situation needed to change; sadly, over the course of these years, CHW has chosen not to comply.

Then, earlier this year, it was brought to my attention that an abortion had taken place at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. When I met with officials of the hospital to learn more of the details of what had occurred, it became clear that, in the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld; but that the baby was directly killed, which is a clear violation of ERD #45. It also was clear that the exceptional cases, mentioned in ERD #47, were not met, that is, that there was not a cancerous uterus or other grave malady that might justify an indirect and unintended termination of the life of the baby to treat the grave illness. In this case, the baby was healthy and there were no problems with the pregnancy; rather, the mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church (Cf. Evangelium Vitae, #62).

It was thus my duty to declare to the person responsible for this tragic decision that allowed an abortion at St. Joseph’s, Sister Margaret McBride, R.S.M., that she had incurred an excommunication by her formal consent to the direct taking of the life of this baby. I did this in a confidential manner, hoping to spare her public embarrassment.

Unfortunately, subsequent communications with leadership at St. Joseph’s Hospital and CHW have only eroded my confidence about their commitment to the Church’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Healthcare. They have not addressed in an adequate manner the scandal caused by the abortion. Moreover, I have recently learned that many other violations of the ERDs have been taking place at CHW facilities in Arizona throughout my seven years as Bishop of Phoenix and far longer.

Let me explain.

CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital, as part of what is called “Mercy Care Plan”, have been formally cooperating with a number of medical procedures that are contrary to the ERDs, for many years. I was never made aware of this fact until the last few weeks. Here are some of the things which CHW has been formally responsible for throughout these years:

• Abortions due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

This information was given to me in a meeting which included an administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital who admitted that St. Joseph’s and CHW are aware that this plan consists in formal cooperation in evil actions which are contrary to Church teaching. The Mercy Care Plan has been in existence for 26 years, includes some 368,000 members, and its 2010 revenues will reach nearly $2 billion. CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital have made more than a hundred million dollars every year from this partnership with the government.

In light of all these failures to comply with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Church, it is my duty to decree that, in the Diocese of Phoenix, at St. Joseph’s Hospital, CHW is not committed to following the teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore this hospital cannot be considered Catholic.

The Catholic faithful are free to seek care or to offer care at St. Joseph’s Hospital but I cannot guarantee that the care provided will be in full accord with the teachings of the Church. In addition, other measures will be taken to avoid the impression that the hospital is authentically Catholic, such as the prohibition of celebrating Mass at the hospital and the prohibition of reserving the Blessed Sacrament in the Chapel.

For seven years now, I have tried to work with CHW and St. Joseph’s, and I have hoped and prayed that this day would not come, that this decree would not be needed; however, the faithful of the Diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice.

Comments

I also wish that the defenders of the medical center would say no, but I would think otherwise. At base their research is really fairly straightforward—it is ok to destroy one lifestyle to preserve another it the first is in the procedure of passing away. Such a place cannot be squared with Catholic ethical training, but many Catholics bristle at that reality. There reaction is “I’m a excellent Catholic and I think that is in such situation the killing would be validated, therefore it is incorrect to say such an act would breach Catholic values.
But I wish your very well-crafted theoretical brings about some more mild here (and it certainly should), but encounter indicates that it likely will not.

Wow. Over 600 comments including many with additional facts and careful moral reasoning, and the best you can do offer an uniformed rant, Paula?

Posted by Paula B. on Sunday, Dec 4, 2011 10:21 AM (EST):

YOU are the reason why so may catholics are leaving the church. I see Sr. M. the Nun you EXCOMUNICATED! as a modern Martyr! God Bless Sr. M. and I pray daily for the scared little men like Bishop Thomas to come to the modern world and believe that modern medicine CAN NOT save everyone.

When I gave birth to one live child and one dead one, I was told by a priest of about your age that “In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church was never really alive in the eyes of the church.” THAT is why so many people no longer trust your version of the faith.

Pray for open hearts and minds people. The Catholic Church is no longer about love and forgiveness, it’s about fear and control.

Posted by Anthony T. Busch on Monday, Jan 10, 2011 11:56 AM (EST):

Those who believe the law of man is more important than the law of God will someday answer for their choice. Who among us would prefer to answer to man or to God?

Posted by Lauren on Wednesday, Jan 5, 2011 1:38 PM (EST):

Go Father! That is so great that they are finally letting the truth come out to the public. Abortion is wrong, in any form, and I’m sick of “Catholics” thinking it is okay. It’s not alright to pick and choose little parts of Catholicism can call yourself Catholic. If you believe that killing God’s creation of Humans (which their DNA says they are) in the most fragile and innocent state is right, good and holy, you are NOT Catholic. This Hospital has one foot in the Catholic church, and the rest of his body in another place. It’s not Catholic, it shouldn’t be called Catholic, and never would I go to that hospital, knowing now what I know. To whom ever… Don’t pull out the molestation card. It is just as common in the Catholic church, as ANY other religion. Media just likes to make a big deal out of it if it’s a Catholic Priest.

I withdrew my ad hom attacks against Pastor Brad. Those went too far; I was wrong.

My remarks to Brandon, on the other hand - every single one of them were in the same tone, spirit, tenor, and mood that I have exchanged with family members, as well as with assorted friends, classmates, friends of friends - people I have loved, all. No difference at all from exchanges with people I love and have loved in “real life”.

Full disclosure: That would have been true back when I was in college and throughout my twenties.

Now that I am 40+, I have learned to be more cautious, more considerate in what I say to people in “real life”, in the interest of preserving the relationship.

However, atheist relatives older than I, and who I know love me, exhibit no such caution in their remarks to me. However, even after a big rant on their end that offends me no end, I know they would totally be there for me, when push comes to shove. And they have been.

I think most people get when somebody loves them, but still lets them have it with both barrels.

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011 4:06 PM (EST):

This probably will be my last post in this discussion, because as I scan the recent posts, everybody seems to be rehashing what’s been said over-and-over-and-over-and-over in earlier posts. Minds are not changing.

Brandon made the same points that Pastor Brad, our United Methodist clergy visitor did, etc., etc.

What I hope each of us will do is to:

1.)Love one another as Christ loved us—even when we disagree—as Christ teaches us.

2.)Pray for the mother and father of the unborn child, so that they may feel God’s love and grace in this unfortunate time.

3.) Pray for the soul of the unborn child—even though the child is with God already as an innocent. (I’m not a believer in the old teaching of “limbo”.)

4.) Pray for Sister McBride, the members of St. Joseph’s ethics committee, the doctors who performed the abortion in order to save the mother’s life, the nurses and other medical professionals who assisted, and Bishop Olmsted who took the course of action, however unpopular, that he felt he needed to do.

5.) And please don’t hate or attack anyone personally because their understanding of morality and / or the Faith is different from yours.

God bless you all. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord…and each other!

Posted by Maggie on Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011 3:01 PM (EST):

I haven’t read all the comments but I am shocked at what I did read. No wonder the Catholic vote holds no power anymore, too many people are either deficient in knowledge of their faith or they have bought into the lies they’ve been fed by media etc, or they think they are Catholic but they pick and choose from the faith which you can’t do and remain truly Catholic. God bless Bishop Olmsted!!!! May God continue to provide him with fortitude, courage, and a spine to always stand up for TRUTH!!!! May more bishops follow his lead!!!! For shame on any institute that lies and calls itself Catholic when they ignore the teachings of the church or when they are not 100% Pro-Life. There is no such thing as a safe abortion. There is no such thing as a need for abortion because of the mental impact on the mother if she were to carry to term. There is no need for sterilization when the Creighton Fertility Care System is as effective as the pill to prevent pregnancy without all the harmful side effects. God’s law supercedes all other laws. He is the one we all must answer to and He is the one whom we should not offend.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 8:47 PM (EST):

It would appear that Brandon is done here, so I will answer Scott’s well-crafted scenario on Brandon’s behalf:

BRANDON: ‘Scott, there is no point your bringing that up. I believe the hospital did the right thing by aborting the woman. The laws of the land required them so to do, and the bishop was wrong to penalize the hospital for obeying the law and providing the only ethical response to this situation. You religious fanatics need to climb into a hole in the ground and stay there, until you are willing to concede that only secularism is the way forward.’

‘Don’t try to confuse the issue by raising other topics or hypothetical situations. The point is you are wrong. Admit it.’

THE END

MARION: What do you call a person who is of above average intelligence, and can put sentences together well, but who combines all the intellectual curiosity of a block of wood with all the imagination of a chunk of asphalt?

I’m not sure, but I’ve spent a whole weekend corresponding with him. And I’ve got the keyboard imprints banged into my forehead to prove it.

Posted by Mike Petrik on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 11:58 AM (EST):

Scott,
I also hope that the defenders of the hospital would say no, but I would guess otherwise. At bottom their analysis is really pretty straightforward—it is ok to kill one life in order to save another it the first is in the process of dying. Such a position cannot be squared with Catholic moral teaching, but many Catholics bristle at that fact. There response is “I’m a good Catholic and I think that is in such case the murder would be justified, therefore it is wrong to say such an act would violate Catholic morality.
But I hope your very well-crafted hypothetical elicits some more light here (and it certainly should), but experience suggests that it likely won’t.

Posted by Scott W. on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 11:51 AM (EST):

Let’s change the scenario. Instead of a woman pregnant, we have a woman in desperate need of a vital organ transplant. The only match is her brother who is in hospice on the verge of death, but the organ needed is in good health and will save her life if transplanted. The time it would take for him to die is estimated to be substantially longer than the time required to replace the organ. May we kill the brother and take the organ in order to save the mother? My guess (and my hope) is that the defenders of St. Joseph would say no, but why not?

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 8:22 AM (EST):

Brandon asked: “As for God being the only one who can cross the line of who may kill and who cannot—how about our military protecting citizens, or police shooting a criminal? Is this arbitrary line only specific to medical procedures? Who is to say the doctor performing this procedure to save the life of the mother isn’t acting as an instrument of God because her life and journey isn’t meant to be over?”

Thank God we up to very recently, have lived in a country in which the laws of God has been respected. The state has a right to defend itself and its citizens against an armed attacker, whether criminals who threaten the lives or property of their fellow citizens, or external attackers - enemy soldiers, for instance. Duly appointed agents of the state, the police, for example, are allowed to use deadly force to protect citizens’ life and limb - but even they must follow certain rules of engagement. Shooting to kill must be a last resort to protect the officer or another citizen. Not even the police are allowed to shoot a clearly unarmed fleeing suspect bearing a stolen television set.

At least, until quite recently. All this could change - laws could be passed, authorizing, even requiring the police to shoot to kill for a traffic violation.

You just never know.

NY citizen, Bernard Goetz, shot and killed some thugs who were hassling him on the subway, and was applauded by many as a hero by many, until it was noted that the thugs had been shot in the back. Even then, many felt that the thugs got what was coming to them.

Up until now, such actions have been illegal. An armed citizen does not possess police powers, and even if in possession of a carry permit, may not shoot to kill unless his or her life is in immediate danger and he has no other recourse but to shoot or be murdered, right now. Such was not the case with Mr. Goetz’s thugs, who attempted to flee when he displayed a firearm - and Mr. Goetz either did time or did community service for his unlawful action.

Of course, in today’s environment, anything is possible. At any time the laws of the land may be amended to permit that neighbors may shoot one another for any reason, or no reason at all. Who knows?

“My main point for you, Marion, is this: Your beliefs are undoubtedly important to you, but you absolutely must agree to the mere possibility you are wrong too.”

They’re not “my” beliefs. They’re the beliefs of the Catholic Church, established by God, the Creator of all that is.

These beliefs were up and running among the early Christians, medieval times, Renaissance times, down to our own day. Even if I - Marion - didn’t believe them, they would still be. Even after I am dead and turned to dust, they will still be.

They are not “my” beliefs.

Brandon wrote: “They call them personal beliefs for a reason—they are intended for your own person.”

Incorrect. Not so. Our country is founded on “the laws of nature and nature’s God” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. That’s the document that separated this country from Great Britain. Our Constitution, the basis for all of our laws includes many references to things like “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” The Creator being God.

Those words were not intended to refer to Thomas Jefferson personally, or to George Washington personally. They demanded that the King of England, King George III, understand and respect those words, too.

Even though King George III didn’t personally believe those things.

Just as you obviously don’t, Brandon.

Which is your right, according to the laws of this country.

It is our job as Americans and as Catholics to roll up our sleeves, folks, and get to work. We need elected leaders and lawmakers who will, once again, respect the “laws of nature and nature’s God”, and who will not allow this country to continue to go down into the pit.

My fellow Catholics, Let’s Roll!

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 7:52 AM (EST):

Just to clarify:

Catholic hospitals and Catholic medical professionals routinely perform hysterectomies on victims of uterine cancer, for example, even if the victim is pregnant.

The point is, even were she not pregnant, the hysterectomy would be medically necessary, and immediately necessary. The baby’s existence is not the target of the procedure.

The removal of the victim’s own diseased tissue is the object of the procedure. The loss of the baby is an unfortunate side-effect, as it were.

These and similar situations are encountered and handled in due course at Catholic medical facilities around the world, and Catholic medical professionals have no difficulty at all in distinguishing between administering life-saving treatment to a patient who would need that treatment even if she were not pregnant; unfortunately, also, the baby won’t make it . . . vs. to directly attack and kill this baby so that the baby’s mother (it is hoped) will do better.

No Catholic bishop in the world would have questioned the scenario of - for example, a cancer of the uterus requiring an immediate hysterectomy. The loss of the baby would have been deemed regrettable, but necessary. I guarantee that this was not the sort of problem that forced Bishop Olmstead to act as he did.

Posted by Susan F Peterson on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 12:33 AM (EST):

“the hospital was required by state law to perform this procedure”

But it was required by God’s law not to perform it.
And is it right that we should obey men rather than God?

Throughout time since the Roman emperors persecuted Christians, and throughout the world today in various places, the laws of various states have required Christians to do what God forbids.

The ultimate obedience of a Catholic hospital is to God’s law as interpreted by Christ’s Church, and their local bishop stands to them in Christ’s place if there is a question of what that law commands.

If the state chooses to come in a bolt the doors of Catholic hospitals shut because they will not do evil that good may come of it, that will have to happen. Then people will lose their jobs and their status and perhaps their houses and cars and all manner of things. God may ask us to lose our lives. If we obey the state rather than God we lose our souls.

I just cannot believe people who say a Catholic hospital has to do something because the law requires it to. It does not and should not, whatever the consequences might be.
Susan Peterson

Posted by thereserita on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 12:30 AM (EST):

“There is the exact problem with religious fanaticism—you deem something amoral because it is contrary to your particular faith. So rather than abstaining from this act yourself, you seek to deny this procedure to all people. What you find wrong for yourself may not be wrong for another.”

This is a really startling statement because I’m sure you honestly believe what you’ve written. Since its untrue on so many levels, let me just address two:
#1 Because I obviously do not agree with you, does not automatically mean that I am the “religious fanatic”. I could as easily argue that you’re allegiance to governmental control makes you a “fanatic”...but I won’t.
#2 Your last sentence quoted above is only true if, indeed, there is no objective truth. In fact there are many easily identifiable objective truths: e.g., gravity. Denying the objective truth of gravity only results in my getting seriously injured when I jump off a building. So please don’t attempt to force the doctrine of moral relativity down my throat. Just as there is objective truth in the physical realm, there is objective truth in the moral realm.
Until recently, religious freedom from gov’t control was a right guaranteed in this country. Now, I’m afraid you’ve clearly demonstrated what Benedict XVI refers to as “the dictatorship of relativism.”

Posted by Brandon on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 12:24 AM (EST):

I’m finished with this discussion. I’ve spoken as a doctor who has had the unfortunate luck to have a patient with a similar affliction. I’ve made it clear, at least in my experience and according to the information disseminated about this case, that there were no solutions in which the pregnancy could be preserved as well as the mother’s life. If you all choose not to believe the words of a medical professional with a similar experience AND the releases from the hospital, that is your choice.

The specific about this case are clear—the hospital was required by state law to perform this procedure. There is no question. To consider this hospital an “abortion hospital” is quite ridiculous. I wouldn’t personally classify this as an “abortion” but rather a medical procedure resulting in the loss of her pregnancy. The purpose of this procedure was to repair damage to the mother, not to specifically terminate her pregnancy.

As for my personal views of abortive procedures, that is really not what this case is about.

Posted by Brandon on Monday, Jan 3, 2011 12:10 AM (EST):

@Marion—You are correct, the hippocratic oath has changed over the years—but certainly not in modern times. The current oath we take has been in existence since the 60s.

As for God being the only one who can cross the line of who may kill and who cannot—how about our military protecting citizens, or police shooting a criminal? Is this arbitrary line only specific to medical procedures? Who is to say the doctor performing this procedure to save the life of the mother isn’t acting as an instrument of God because her life and journey isn’t meant to be over?

My main point for you, Marion, is this: Your beliefs are undoubtedly important to you, but you absolutely must agree to the mere possibility you are wrong too. Nothing you’ve stated about God, truth, or the moment a life is a life are a certainty. If we lived in a world where mere beliefs were powerful or important enough to deny treatment which can save a person’s life, that would be a tragedy for most. You brought up the Nazis before—look at what their unfounded beliefs lead to. Leading by belief can result in tragic consequences. They call them personal beliefs for a reason—they are intended for your own person.

@theresrita—Hospitals serve communities, not religions. They may have any number of faiths affiliated with them—I’ve worked at hospitals affiliated with the Catholic church and the Jewish faith… Requiring them to offer sound, proven treatments in no way denies followers of said faith a means to practice their religion or live by their own moral compass. It merely means that a hospital is a public utility which MUST offer all sound, medically-relevant treatments to save a life. No one requires you or any other patient to receive a treatment which is contrary to their faith.

There is the exact problem with religious fanaticism—you deem something amoral because it is contrary to your particular faith. So rather than abstaining from this act yourself, you seek to deny this procedure to all people. What you find wrong for yourself may not be wrong for another.

Its on this basis our country thankfully requires all hospitals provide all relevant treatments needed to save a life regardless of a hospital’s religious affiliation. Religious groups have found fault with varied medical practices over the years. Religious leaders move slower than science, thats a fact. And when my life is in danger, I would find a lot more comfort in medical treatments and practitioners than religious doctrine.

As long as he gets to kill infants in order (he supposes) to save their mother’s lives, anything goes.

And now we’re back to POWs in Gitmo. To save the lives of their comrades, should the U.S. military be allowed to torture POWs? According to Brandon’s brand of reasoning, yes, and if given the order to do so, a U.S. military recruit should torture if ordered to do so - according to Brandon’s brand of reasoning - or face court-martial.

As long as those in authority have the power to force us to do anything “to save lives”, then anything goes, according to the brand of reasoning Brandon espouses.

The name for that brand of reasoning is “utilitarianism”, and it is not a Judaeo-Christian form of ethics.

The Catholic ethical requirement is: “Thou shalt not evil that good may result.” You may not torture prisoners to gain information that will save lives. You may not kill infants to save their mothers’ lives.

The Catholic world-view and the world-view of secular utilitarianism basically negate each other.

Posted by thereserita on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 11:42 PM (EST):

“It is not up to a hospital’s religious affiliation to deem some life-saving procedures acceptable and others not…”

By the way, anyone who wants to can read the history of the changes to the the original Hippocratic Oath read as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath.

The original oath included promises not to procure abortion and infanticide.

The modern versions, natch, do not.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 11:21 PM (EST):

Catholics don’t *want* to see anyone die.

Death is horrible.

But sooner or later, we all die.

I will die. You will die. One day it will be said of me, “Marion is dead.”

Of you, too, Brandon.

Of everyone here.

It will one day be true of every patient every doctor has ever treated. Of every pregnant woman. She will die. So will her child. Will grow up and will one day. Die.

None of this will ever change, and there is nothing I can do about it.

Nothing you can do about it, either.

With God’s help, and with medical science, we can treat illness, disease and injury.

But only up to a certain point.

Even when treated, patients die. Pregnant women die. Babies die.

A physician might “treat” a mother of four by intentionally killing the unborn child within her in the hope of saving her life . . .

. . . and on her way home from the hospital, a semi-trailer careens off an overpass, lands on the car in which the newly-released patient is traveling, killing her and the car’s other occupants.

Now those four children are still without their mother.

And that physician who had killed her child . . . achieved precisely what?

What was achieved?

Nothing. That’s what.

Killing achieves nothing.

We don’t kill.

We are to heal; we are to treat; we are to help; we are to assist.

We are not to kill.

That’s what this is about.

We don’t kill the defenseless innocent. No matter what.

Only God may take a life. Not man.

We are all in His hands. We are to do whatever we can to help each live. But up to a certain point we may go, and no further.

To kill another, crosses a line we may never cross.

He may cross it. We may not.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 11:19 PM (EST):

@Steve—there is just one flaw in your logic, hospitals in the United States serve communities, not those who believe in one particular brand of faith. You may have devoted your life to the teachings of Jesus Christ, but not all in your community have. When confronted with a life-threatening situation, your local community hospital (regardless of any religious affiliation) is duty-bound to provide any and all proven, life-saving measures. For pregnant women, this does at times mean a procedure which results in a lose of the pregnancy. There is no question—all hospitals MUST offer these treatments. It is not up to a hospital’s religious affiliation to deem some life-saving procedures acceptable and others not. Its a patient’s decision whether or not to authorize these treatments. All hospitals must offer them. They do, however, have discretion on elective procedures.

I’ll go one step further. If we allowed hospitals to disallow various life-saving procedures based upon their religious affiliations, we would basically be forcing religious beliefs onto those in the hospital’s community who may not subscribe to said faith or any faith for that matter. By attempting to limit procedures like this, the bishop involved is forcing his religious ideals onto those who live near this hospital and would seek treatment there.

As for the hippocratic oath, it most certainly has not changed, nor will it ever. And the data on “50% of contraception leading to breast cancer” is also quite off base. I specifically work in oncology and can safely say I’ve never seen a patient develop any cancerous growths because of the use of contraception. There is, however, some INCONCLUSIVE research showing a somewhat higher risk for the development of breast cancer. That said, there is also research (conducted more recently) showing the opposite. The research you are citing was conducted in 1996 and also indicates once the patient had dispensed with oral contraception, their risk returned to normal. We’re getting quite off subject here. I’m not even going to address your bit about Nazis as it does not pertain to this case.

I’ve worked for over 20 years as an MD. For the bulk of my career, I’ve worked in oncology. I’ve seen a number of patients with no options, zero chance for recovery, and no hope for a future. Its one of the most desperate, difficult scenarios one can watch unfold for a family and patient. Its my experience in palliative care that makes me furious when people such as Marion and other posters would rather see a mother (like the one this story is about) end her life rather than be administered a procedure which can easily save her life. Her death, in this scenario, would have been senseless and cruel to impose upon her. Specifically, while in my residency at a very large hospital, I saw two very similar cases to what this woman’s case is reported as. For both, it was a difficult decision. But fortunately, they decided to authorize treatment so we could save their lives. When there is a route of treatment which can save a life, it must be offered. Life is full of many other scenarios where a person is not so fortunate.

The basic truth is this: the treatment in this case was both warranted and necessary to save the woman’s life regardless of religious affiliation. Should a hospital deny this treatment in a similar case, they would have undoubtedly ended her life, have violated state and federal laws, violated hippocratic oath, and been financially liable for the death of the mother.

Posted by Steve on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 10:23 PM (EST):

Brandon,

I would share with you three simple statements:

1) Science works (especially when considered in its totality)!
2) The truth of Jesus Christ is the truest truth of the Universe
3) Statements 1 and 2 are in total unity. They are not mutually exclusive.

Steve

Posted by Steve on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 10:11 PM (EST):

Brandon,

Actually, I am a Chemist who has studied biochemistry and physical biochemistry and was an Emergency Medical Technician for 24 years on the side and well as a Deacon who has taken 3 semesters in moral theology.
I am a total science nerd, who met his wife (an ASCP Med Tech/Chemist) while in Physics class.
I also hold a Degree in Eastern European History with minors in Political Science and German.I believe that I know moral relativism (and scientific too) when I see it.

I was fired from a job rather then be a part of amoral practices and corporate decisions. I had to start a new career at the bottom, which hurt my wife and children. (But Brandon, I can sleep at night and look myself in the eye when I shave in the morning). It is my earnest prayer that everyone involved in this issue can do the same. May Gods blessing be on all here.

Steve

Posted by thereserita on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 9:29 PM (EST):

Paragraph #1: The facts of this CHW case have been argued for the last 650+ comments. I’m not going to rehash them again in this comment. Please see my earlier comments for my opinion on this.

Paragraph #2: Would you find it “ironic” if, upon running out of a burning building, I tried to warn others not to run into it?? I suppose, with some twist of logical thought, other persons would have the “right” to go right ahead & run into a fire but I also have the “right” to warn them about where they’re going.

Paragraph #3: Again, neither you nor I or anyone else on this thread, knows the specifics of this particular mother’s case. I do, though, know the specifics of another mother’s case who chose to give her daughter life & lose her own in the process. Her 4 children attended her canonization a few years ago in Rome along with their dad. In her particular case, she demonstrated that “to save our life, we must lose it.” Since I admire your interest & tenacity re: this topic, you might want to acquaint yourself more thoroughly with real life cases such as hers: Dr. Gianna Molla.

Paragraph #4: You’re correct in saying that i have no idea how the child in the video lost her arm. For most people, its enough to know that its obviously an arm that belonged to a baby & that everyday in this country 3,000-4,000 babies lose theirs. That’s a fact so I just connect the dots.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 8:52 PM (EST):

@Marion—You are wonderfully uninformed as to scientific data and arm yourself with nothing more than propaganda. Further, you enjoy taking my sound logic and manipulating it into half-truth and wild speculation. I happen to be well versed in what does have and doesn’t have DNA. And ALL of this is well beside the point of this specific case. I’ll not even address the rest of your banter as it does not pertain to this specific case.

The bottom line is that you and people like you would rather have seen this mother and her fetus die than the hospital perform a procedure that is both warranted and required by any ethical doctor in order to save the mother’s life.

I understand the viewpoint of people who are anti-abortion. I do not share it. I’m entitled to that opinion. But that entire debate is completely beside the point in this case. We aren’t talking about elective abortion, we are talking about a life saving measure. Continue on as much as you want about dogs, cats, rocks, stabbing fetuses in the head with scissors, or whatever other attempt to cloud the issue you might—it has no bearing on this specific case. We are talking about a measure taken to save the life of a pregnant woman in distress. That is all.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 8:41 PM (EST):

@thereserita—So let me get this right—you would actually have rather both the mother and the fetus in this case have died? Please, clarify—do you think this mother should have died out of some sort of obligation to God?

I find it a little ironic that you, a woman who has sought abortion in the past, would find it necessary to deny the right of another woman to the same procedure. It may not have been the right answer for you, and you may struggle with your past decision—but who are you to outline what is and is not acceptable for another person?

There is a very real difference between “part of the mother dying” and the mother actually dying. The distinction is very apparent—she is still alive to care for and raise her other four children. If that isn’t an obviously good thing, I don’t know what would be.

As for the dismembered arm of the fetus—of course this is an emotional image. Any person feels sadness for the fetus and mother. The difference is that you do not know the circumstances which led to this imagery. Nor do you know that this occurred in the abortion process. For all you know, this occurred post-moretem to a child which passed by natural causes. Don’t think “just because I saw this image I know what happened” because there are a number of means which this thought and emotion evoking imagery could occur.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 7:32 PM (EST):

Brandon wrote: “you . . . have the audacity to call out years of scientific research in which we have classified exactly where the line of ‘life’ is within a pregnancy when you are doing the same exact thing with no viable evidence or scientific backing.”

Brandon,

Any medical professional with even a scintilla of intellectual honesty or personal integrity whatsoever, would admit that from a contemporary clinical perspective, that baby is “a life” the moment the mother becomes aware of the pregnancy and is overjoyed by it, and accepts it and wants it - as early as the 4th or 5th week. That new life is cherished and nurtured by parents and medical establishment, nutritionists, yoga instructors, doulas, insurance companies, and investment firms, and scholarship outfits, and you name it go to work on that baby’s behalf.

Basically from Day One.

However, when the baby isn’t wanted, suddenly -

- Brandon’s Shell Game.

It is suddenly not a life.

I call that d_mned unscientific. All based on whether the mother wants the baby or not?

No, the Church’s view is much more cogent. Much fairer: Human life is sacred and is to be nurtured from the moment of conception until natural death.

“You claim a life is a life because it has DNA—well so does EVERYTHING on this planet.”

No, Brandon. *Living* beings have DNA: people, trees, animals, plants, bacteria have DNA. But rocks, sand, water do not; things which don’t live, grow, or reproduce do not have DNA.

You further wrote: “Furthermore, so do the thousands of embryos waiting for implantation at reproductive facilities all over the world. Everyday, hundreds of embryos are lost prior to their implantation due to aging or are compromised in some other way—where is your outrage for them?”

Along with that of the rest of the Church, I agree that it is, indeed, an outrage that human embryos are created and discarded outside the womb.

At least however, this abomination is not being perpetrated in Catholic hospitals or universities, nor are Catholics being forced to participate in it.

Yet.

It is a crime to manipulate human life into existence, just as it is a crime to destroy human life.

All human life belongs to God. To God alone.

“Human DNA is nothing more than a blueprint on HOW to build a person. Unique? Yes. Should it be granted the same rights as a breathing human being? No. There is a clear line in a pregnancy between self-sustained life and a “work in progress” as we’ll call it.”

Um.

Just to be clear, I don’t propose granting human status to the DNA, Brandon.

I propose, and the Church proposes, that a living, growing organism, the product of conception between a human mother and a human father, with a full complement of human chromosomes, is a living being that belongs to the human race. Incidental characteristics that are subject to change - such as viability - do not constitute a scientifically valid criterion upon which to bestow that being’s status as a human life.

Scientifically speaking, a human life is a human life throughout its entire lifespan. It begins as an embryo, then becomes a fetus, a neonate, a toddler, a child, a youth, an adult, an elderly person. At no time in its existence is it lawful in the sight of God for me or for you to stab, to strangle, to shoot, to poison, burn, asphyxiate, or otherwise to kill it.

“I’ll ask you again, do not believe you can speak for me or that you know why I stand where I do. You are as equipped to make commentary about my views as a fetus.”

Brandon, you’ll forgive me if I don’t agree with your assessment as to my capacity to comment on the views of your good self. I feel that I am perfectly well up to the job. I suggest, Brandon, that if you don’t like what I write, then that you not read my posts, and not respond to them.

Simple-dimple!

Posted by thereserita on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 6:54 PM (EST):

“Does that specifically indicate
something as gruesome as what Marion described? No.”

I’m sorry, if a baby’s disconnected arm doesn’t indicate something “gruesome”, I’m not sure if anything would. Yes, you’re right, its a factual picture that should normally evoke an “emotional” response. Its really not hard to imagine how her arm was torn off her body but there are videos that walk you through that “procedure” too…

When you say “Why would anyone think losing two lives is better than losing one?”, let me assure you, as a post-abortive mom myself, that BOTH mother & baby die during an elective abortion. No matter what age the baby was, no matter whether the parents experience the pain of the babies’ death or not, no matter, Brandon, how you slice & dice it: When a baby dies, part of her mom dies too. No one is doing a mother a favor by allowing her to kill her baby. Trust me on this.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 4:40 PM (EST):

@thereserita—Is that sad? Absolutely. Does that specifically indicate something as gruesome as what Marion described? No. Let me reiterate—I’m not a proponent of abortion. But there are a number of valid reasons a patient may seek one. This video proves nothing and displays nothing as to how the procedure was performed. Its made specifically to evoke an emotional response without any physical evidence as to how humanely or inhumanely the procedure was performed.

This appears to be a late-term abortion as well. I find this to be the most questionable—but yes, they are even warranted in some extreme cases. When a mother’s life is at risk, and the only viable way to save her life is in performing a procedure which will terminate the pregnancy, you have to perform the procedure. Why would anyone think losing two lives is in some way better than losing one?

My personal feeling is that we should only allow elective abortions to be performed up until the 10th week. Any woman should know by that time she is pregnant and have made a decision on whether or not to continue her pregnancy. But, if at any time during her pregnancy a woman’s personal health is at risk, and the only solution is a procedure which will result in termination of the pregnancy, then you simply have to put her life at a greater importance.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no sense in losing the mother on top of the pregnancy.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 4:30 PM (EST):

@Steve—are you a medical professional? Do you have ANY training or education in ANY medically related field? I highly doubt it.

You have no concept of how one can repair the damage this mother had internally. There, unfortunately, was no other way to repair the damage inside this woman without resulting in a termination of her pregnancy. There is no medical solution that involved saving both lives—only one, and only the mothers.

As for rewriting the hippocratic oath—that is completely untrue. The hippocratic oath is not state-driven, its part of medical ethics. I think you invented that information… I can safely say you are 100% wrong.

As for all your other bits of information, I’m sure they are either self-invented or propaganda from anti-abortion, anti-contraception groups. There is absolutely nothing linking birth control of any kind on the market to heart attacks or shorter life span. If there were, we’d pull them from the market and find another solution.

Posted by thereserita on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 4:23 PM (EST):

Brandon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp—UE

This video will take one minute of your time to watch & will refute your statement: “today’s traditional abortion methods, they are simply not as gruesome…”

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 4:22 PM (EST):

@Marion—Yes, it comes down to scientific definitions regarding the term “life”, “fetus”, “embryo”, etc. We, as people, like to classify things to set a standard of care or operating procedure. You do it, doctors do it, everyone does it.

What I find amazing is that you have the audacity to call out years of scientific research in which we have classified exactly where the line of “life” is within a pregnancy when you are doing the same exact thing with no viable evidence or scientific backing. You claim a life is a life because it has DNA—well so does EVERYTHING on this planet. Furthermore, so do the thousands of embryos waiting for implantation at reproductive facilities all over the world. Everyday, hundreds of embryos are lost prior to their implantation due to aging or are compromised in some other way—where is your outrage for them? Human DNA is nothing more than a blueprint on HOW to build a person. Unique? Yes. Should it be granted the same rights as a breathing human being? No. There is a clear line in a pregnancy between self-sustained life and a “work in progress” as we’ll call it.

I’ll ask you again, do not believe you can speak for me or that you know why I stand where I do. You are as equipped to make commentary about my views as a fetus.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 4:10 PM (EST):

@Marion—just because I personally won’t perform an abortion, doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with someone requesting one. There are several valid reasons for an elective abortive procedure. I agree, abortions are performed far too often in this country—the problem is not easy access to these procedures, its a lack of personal responsibility and good parenting to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. You are getting WAY off topic and being very disrespectful. This is why no one can have a logical, sound debate with you—you are a self-riteous person who believes only in your own perception of truth.

Yes, its possible to find an elective abortion distasteful but still find the compassion to allow someone else to perform them. Why would I not perform them? First and foremost—I don’t work in an abortion clinic or establishment that does perform an elective procedure of this nature. Secondly, that is not my specialty nor is it the type of procedure I’d be comfortable performing. Unlike you, I don’t feel what is wrong for me is wrong for the world.

As for traditional abortion—I again, never said there was NO cutting, No blood, etc. as you have implied. But in today’s traditional abortion methods, they are simply not as gruesome as you have described.

And NONE of this has a thing to do with this specific story. Believe whatever you want about elective abortion—that is your right. But don’t confuse the situation in this story with elective abortion—they are entirely different. I have a feeling you continue to bring up elective abortion because you know this procedure was both warranted and valid, yet you feel this is a great platform to be vocal about your misguided views. Unfortunately, the result is that you end up looking like a confused, uninformed person.

Posted by Steve on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 3:15 PM (EST):

Pastor Brad,
This is why the states have been rewriting the hippocratic oath for medical personnel, so that the medical personnel can not fall back on that oldest of oaths and not personally participate in murder. Many Catholic nurses and doctors, at non-catholic hospitals have been fired for not participating in abortion.
The State ( Federal and local state) has been taking the legal and moral defenses away from the people so that they MUST perform the act or lose their jobs.
The “Nazi’s” have falsified so much of medial science to the point that Abortion is a medical necessity for a tooth ache. This is medical moral relativism. You may desire to defend those who participate but Catholic medicine should never have to kowtow to such whim. To answer in any way with the excuse of “I was only following orders” or “medical directives” or what ever convenient lame rationalization, that they think that someone will willingly or gullibly swallow, is wrong.

The abortion lobby, has made so many inroads into the legal and financial aspects of medicine, that we will either lose our care, lose our lives, or lose our souls in the “New Medicine” care arena.

When the public hospital has a directive which says that we will not spend $ on advanced care…“just make them comfortable”, then we all lose.
This is triage by re$ource at its worst.

When one of the posters on this thread, stated that this entire incident did not have to follow this pathway; that another medical researcher, has successfully brought 45 out of 45 patients to successful deliveries, why is this buried?
It is buried for the same reason that consistent research shown that oral contraception has lead to a 50% increase in breast cancer in young women, is also buried. Do you think that the abortion industry, [Planned parenthood(?), and the Federal Government], would willingly propagate this information to save womens lives?

Bottom Line… Let Catholic hospitals be free of interference from those with no moral or life ethic other than that of convenience.

Steve

(Nominate Sr. Keehan (sp?) for the Mengele Award for life ethic?)

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 11:22 AM (EST):

Re-reading Brandon’s latest posts, I now realize he uses the phrase, “I’ll leave you with . . .” which suggests he’s gone.

So I’ll tell the remaining reader(s) why.

I’ll tell why our Brandon won’t perform abortions simply on demand.

Because for modern science, it all comes down to definitions.

And when it comes to human life, the definition of any given living entity, according to modern science, is a big shell game.

Now you see it! (“it” being a human defined as a human)

Now you don’t! (“it” being a human with its human definition removed or denied.)

And the identification of this being as *human* can change and switch back and forth in the twinkling of an eye!

Depending on - oh! All sorts of things!

Is it “viable outside the womb”? Was its father a rapist? Does its mother have preeclampsia?

Is it raining in Bulgaria? And are the Knicks likely to win Friday?

How very *scientific*! How methodical! How very convenient!

Now it’s “human”. Now it’s “not”.

It doesn’t get any more non-falsifiable that that!

When it comes to this shell game about the definition of who is human and who is not, modern men and women of science are like 4-year-old children standing in the middle of a cow pasture, covering their eyes with their hands and thinking YOU can’t see THEM!

When it comes to this shell game, modern men and women of science are like younger teenagers who stick their fingers in their ears and go “La-la-a! I can’t hear you! La!”

But modern men and women of science are far more sophisticated than children or teens. Oh! They *do* the same thing, but they are able to generate a veritable blizzard of fine-sounding terms and phrases, scenarios, and case details all constructed to swirl and dance, and overwhelm us, to create the intellectual “white-out conditions” necessary to carry on their shell game unimpeded.

And these shell-gamers are now writing our laws, and have it in their power to make it difficult for reputable physicians and reputable hospitals to continue to do their job.

Mighty difficult.

At bottom, even the shell gamers realize what a shell game they are playing. They know they are attacking and killing children of God when they perform abortions. They know that to do so is monstrous, an abomination. But they’re caught up in the shell game - it’s their world, their life, their career, their reputation, their status.

Their student loans, if you will.

So, the shell game continues. And if the shells’ surface can be polished enough, and have enough glitter applied to them, they figure, they can just carry it off, and no one will be the easier.

They can even fool themselves, they figure.

And maybe then . . . maybe, maybe. . .

. . . maybe they will be able to sleep at night, without alcohol or drugs to knock them out.

That’s why Brandon doesn’t do elective abortions.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 10:52 AM (EST):

I’m sorry, Father George. . .

I’ve got to say this to Brandon:

Friggin’ WUSS!

Yeah, Wuss!

Here’s Brandon, “Even at just a few weeks, with a unique human DNA complement, well-differentiated cells, a heartbeat, a brain, and blood circulating, I still dare to call that being a non-human . . . and I will readily attack its life with chemicals or a knife if I some reason fit to do so occurs to me, but if some reason fit to do so doesn’t - such as the mother’s request . . . then

I Brandon, like to keep my manicure fresh and my skirts starchy white . . . I’ll say “no” to the woman requesting that I take the life of her infant because she has a modelling gig coming up in Milan next season.

How dare you?

How dare you say no to what women feel they need and want?

Who do you think you are, anyway? To play God in that way?

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 10:43 AM (EST):

Brandon wrote: “I would not be willing to perform an elective abortion.”

According to you, modern methods are crisp and clean. Exquisite. Neat. No muss, no fuss. No blood. No cutting. And early enough, it’s not a baby. It’s a clump. Like drowning a kitten, or smothering a sick old lady with a pillow.

It’s rather like - you just take its little face, dip it in, hold it, wait until the warmth and the life fade away . . . and voila!

Wrong Brendon. It is not the mother’s personal decision. There are three three other beings to be taken into considration. The baby, the father and God who has said:

Deuteronomy 30:19:
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,

that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:

therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 3:23 AM (EST):

@Marion—The last thing I want to leave you with is a simple truth. Medical professionals in this country and specific to this case aren’t involved in a conspiracy to force abortive procedures onto patients. In situations like this, we are compelled by medical ethics and the laws of our country to offer the best medical options to save the life of our patients. In this situation, the mother was the patient, not the fetus. The life of a fetus can’t be a factor in providing a medically-necessary procedure to save her life. Unless an unborn child can survive outside the womb, its not considered a “life”—but the mother is a living, breathing human being. The preservation of a certain life is paramount in situations like this. Is it unfortunate? Absolutely. Would I perform this procedure? Absolutely and without any reluctance. Her life is of more importance than an embryo which cannot live without her life intact.

And before you go there again (on an unrelated note)—I would not be willing to perform an elective abortion. Nor would I prevent someone from seeking one. This is a personal decision for a woman to make on her own after careful consideration.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 3:01 AM (EST):

@Marion—Most elective abortion procedures today are performed via oral medication in pill form which can be easily purchased over the internet. Most pregnancies are terminated in the first month of conception by either a pill like the “Plan B” pill which basically prevents a pregnancy from ever taking place, or any number of pills which terminate a pregnancy by breaking down the embryo and let the waste components pass just as a menstrual cycle would. Anything up to 10 weeks is considered an embryo and its by this stage most pregnancies are terminated. This is the preferred method over an administered abortion. Medically performed abortions are also performed quite differently from how you’ve described—they are a bit more humane and certainly not as graphic as you’ve indicated. Personally, I don’t think I could ever administer an elective abortion, I’d find this a bit difficult and unsettling. But, yes, I find there to be a number of sound reasons where an abortion is both ethical and justified.

Now, this is something entirely different than what the mother in this story faced. Her choice to terminate her pregnancy was not one of choice, but rather a means of saving her life. When faced with this, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is simple—you must save the life that can be saved. There really is no question.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 2:48 AM (EST):

@Marion—I’ve performed similar procedures where it was required to excavate a mother’s womb in order to access a clot or any other number of medical scenarios which would have undoubtedly ended both the life of the mother and the fetus. This happens in rare cares and is a tragedy to all involved. The fact is that even if you were able to repair the damage to the mother while ignoring or bypassing the womb, the mother’s blood pressure, anesthesia and combination of pre and post-op drugs would end the “life” of the fetus. Even if it were possible to repair her damage and keep the womb intact, the possibility of infection to the mother and fetus would be increased. I can say with a medical certainty, this was a life-saving procedure as it was reported and CERTAINLY NOT an elective abortive procedure.

You can keep typing your graphic (albeit incorrect by today’s standards) idea of what an elective abortive procedure is—but that is not at all the way this procedure is conducted.

I am in no way a proponent of abortions. I think there are a number of ways an unplanned pregnancy can be handled which do not result in abortion. The most important thing we can teach is simply to not become pregnant by practicing safe sex or to abstain. But, having worked in the community hospitals I have, and having seen the terrible life situations I’ve seen, I have to be pro-choice. I’d never recommend to a 13 year old rap victim that she carry their father’s child to term. And in this situation, I’d never recommend a mother of four to end her life because she is against abortion. The lose of her life in this situation would have been senseless, and any religious person would have to agree regardless of their faith.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 2:33 AM (EST):

Brando, you write and tell me that to intentionally to kill an innocent human may not always wrong, that to stab and dismember a defenseless infant to death may at times be right, and that you would be willing to do that.

Go ahead.

Tell it.

I’m waiting to hear it from your own lips.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 2:31 AM (EST):

@Marion—You bet hospitals today are compelled to providing the best medical care regardless of their religious affiliation when presented with a life-threatening situation. Elective procedures and medications are entirely different. This is the United States—a country were we are all presented as equals and we have no official religion AND should have access to the highest quality medical care regardless of moral quandaries of others. Your God may not necessarily be my God. We also live in a country where most smaller communities ONLY have hospitals affiliated with one religion or another. If we allowed hospitals to dictate through religion what life-saving medical procedures they would or wouldn’t administer, we’d have seen a number of deaths over the years though various procedures which were deemed contrary to one particular faith or another.

At one time or another, transplants, blood transfusions, x-rays, autopsies, and more were looked at by one faith or another as “contrary to their teachings”—but we still performed this procedures as they were sound, medical treatments found to improve the success rater of saving a patient’s life. Even today, the Jewish faith is very much against an autopsy, but Cedars-Sinai (a Jewish faith hospital) is compelled to perform these procedures in cases where a death is questionable or may represent a medically-dangerous situation to the community.

A hospital is, first and foremost, a community resource of medical care. That means it serves an ENTIRE community, not just those who subscribe to one particular faith. In life-threatening matters, they absolutely MUST provide every medical option available to the patient. Again, this is saying nothing about elective procedures or medications.

Furthermore, by denying this institution the right to call itself “Catholic”, the only people hurt are those in the community of the hospital who are Catholic and may be comforted by their faith in a time of need. Prayer, guidance and religion are important components to hope and recovery for many, by removing this religious signature, the bishop only accomplishes 1) to deny access to religious counsel and comfort at their most desperate time, and 2) to make a national name for himself.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 2:24 AM (EST):

Brandon wrote: “The basic fact is that you would rather this mother die than have the life saving procedure which, unfortunately, results in what amounts to an abortion.”

Brandon, when you tell us that you have actually done the procedure and found that it has saved anyone’s life, I will agree that you have street cred. Why don’t you be the one to wrap your fingertips around the sharp instrument and stab that baby to death?

Then dismember it, piece by piece, and draw it out of the mother’s body.

Yes, there will be blood.

A lot of blood.

You have to be careful, too, since at even eleven weeks, the baby will try to writhe away from the instrument that you’re using to kill it.

And, by the way, Brandon, insult me - Marion - not Susan. *I*‘m the one who spoke of your advocating blowing a baby’s brains out.

I’m the one who is the “whacko”. I’m the one with obvious infirmities.

Marion is the whacko. Not Susan

Because I insist that mutilating and slaughtering helpless infant is never morally licit.

You don’t get any sicker than that.

What depravity. To insist that intentionally to kill a living, defenseless child, even to save someone else’s life - can never be justified ? Utter sickness.

To pick up a sharp object, a knife, or a scalpel and stab a baby to death - can never be right?

@Marion—So, just let me clarify your position here. Even if you agree that this mother’s life was in danger by the continuance of her pregnancy, you would still have wanted her to take the chance of losing both her life AND the fetus she was carrying? Where is the logic in this? Does it seem logical that your version of God would want her four children to grow up without their mother because you and a few like-minded individuals are uncomfortable with the procedure needed to save her life?

As a medical professional, I find this particular brand of religious devotion beyond understanding. We are in a world where medical certainty is being ignored by religious ideology still. I agree, its a terrible reality when a pregnant woman would seek to abort her fetus—in any stage. It truly was unfortunate, even in this situation, that she was required to do so in order to save her life and continue raising her four children. But at a certain point, you MUST agree that protecting the one life that is capable of being saved is of more importance than choosing to obey some religious covenant which results in the lose of two lives rather than one. Math is very simple—two or one? You decide. Make no mistake, this is a medical certainty in her situation as it was reported.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 2:02 AM (EST):

@Susan—actually, even the hospital you worked at would be duty and legally bound to perform the procedure this woman reluctantly received. This was the only viable solution for her life to be saved. It, unfortunately, amounted to the abortion of her fetus. Should your hospital have withheld this procedure, they would be legally and ethically liable for what would have ultimately resulted in her death. There is no question about it. I’m speaking with medical certainty here, not through faith-driven blindness.

The procedures you speak of are not a matter of life-and-death. Sterilization and birth control are procedures and medications which the hospitals and practitioners DO have discretion on as they are NOT life-threatening. Hospitals can also decide if they wish perform abortive procedures of an elective nature. That is also, an entirely different situation.

This scenario is unique, in that, this woman’s dire medical situation required a procedure which resulted in the abortion of her fetus. What amounted to the abortion was the only means of her recovery, and for the hospital to deny her access to this procedure would have been a violation on the hospitals part.

Posted by Brandon on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 1:51 AM (EST):

@Susan - You are the epitome of the ignorance in this argument. I never said anything about traditional abortion where it is used because the mother simply doesn’t WANT to carry a baby to term. The basic fact is that you would rather this mother die than have the life saving procedure which, unfortunately, results in what amounts to an abortion. She did not WANT the abortion. It was, however, the only way to save her life. As it is reported, this was not a “one live vs. the other” scenario. This was a “lose one life or two lives” scenario. But still, that makes no difference in the mind of a religious zealot who is more concerned with church doctrine than saving the life of a living, breathing, mother of four actual children. Congrats on the logic.

I also never said I hate anything. What a wonderful insinuation by a person who purports to follow the word of God. I won’t even address your remarks about “blowing a baby’s brain out” as they are completely off base and have nothing to do with this woman’s situation. Just as any wacko does, when you can’t prove your case through sound logic, you jump to extreme laughable scenarios that only serve to showcase your obvious infirmities.

Posted by Elaine Suhre on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 1:40 AM (EST):

Pastor Brad what is your core belief? Is it of God, or man. With all due respect to your being a Pastor, I find you logic confusing. The laws of man are not constant unless they uphold the laws of God.

These hospitals may provide all those services, compassionately and expertly, but only one service matters:

Will practitioners at that hospital annihilate infants in womens’ wombs when told to do so?

Without squawking about it?

If not, shut them down.

Welcome to the New America.

Doesn’t it make you proud?

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 1:29 AM (EST):

Susan, Pastor Brad and Brandon have clarified for us that what today’s hospitals are supposed to be about is not compassionate and ethical care for the treatment of illness or injury, . . . . no, no! That’s old, passe stuff. Who cares about that? A good hospital is about killing infants whose existence in the womb threatens the welfare of their mothers.

*That’s* what separates a good hospital from a poor one. Will that hospital, when needed, annihilate infants in the womb? Will the physicians, when government regulators indicate so, take a sharp instrument and shove it into the body of that baby so as to kill it?

Or not?

That’s your good hospital vs. your bad one.

That’s it!

Posted by Susan F Peterson on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 12:57 AM (EST):

Brandon says,

‘As for calling a hospital Catholic—that has no bearing on the medical treatment provided or available. Have a religious component to the hospital is to provide patients (who desire it) access to religious healing and worship components.’

No, calling a hospital Catholic means everything that is done at that hospital should be informed by and inspired by, the truth of the Catholic faith!

The Catholic hospital I worked at had been founded by an order whose motto “Caritas Christi urget nos” -The Love of Christ ‘urges’ us, or ‘motivates us,’ or ‘drives us’ -was displayed throughout the hospital. One could not get on or off any elevator without seeing it. Every room and nurse’s station displayed a crucifix. We made no serious life or death decisions without consulting an ethics committee headed by a nun- one whose principles were more soundly founded than the one in this hospital, thank God, while I was there. No abortions were done there. The hospital lost business rather than agree to tie off a woman’s fallopian tubes when she had her C sections. The pharmacy dispensed no birth control pills, nor did the insurance program pay for them. If patients were on them, they had to bring their own from home, and the nursing staff could not dispense them. (The pharmacy did take note that patients were using them and put it in their computer as this might be medically important information relevant to treatment.) We never “eased out” patients with huge amounts of sedatives, although we did do everything necessary and possible to relieve pain.

I don’t want to be all negative about this. I believe that caritas Christi was also what contributed to our patience with the befuddled and/or agitated elderly, was with us as we changed beds and walked old ladies to the bathroom, gave us courage to acknowledge our errors, and held our heads up when they wanted to droop with fatigue over our charts.

I know nurses can be like this even in completely secular hospitals; I don’t think one has to have the motto on the wall to have the love of Christ in one’s heart, even if one does not know its name. But I do believe the ethical priciples of the hospital were a great support to those working there. One knew one could pray with a patient who wanted it. One could encourage a pregant patient to choose to have her baby, and even document it, without fearing reprisal.

I hope that hospital has not capitulated to the many pressures which must be upon it in these dark days. I fear to discover other wise.

Susan Peterson

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 12:04 AM (EST):

To Father Robert George: You have expressed objections to my ad hominem remarks directed to the commenter calling himself Pastor Brad.

I now realize that you are an owner / administrator of this site. Accordingly, I withdraw my previous ad hominem remarks.

To Brandon, who wrote: “Religious zealots here would rather have seen this mother AND the child lose their life than allow this procedure to have taken place in a “Catholic” hospital.” Brandon, you write so well, so convincingly about how much you hate “religious zealots” who want to stand by and watch women die when, of course, the only correct thing to do in such cases would be to take a sharp instrument and stab the unborn infant to death, cut it into pieces, and withdraw it piece by piece from the mother’s body.

Oh! And we have to reassemble the parts of the baby’s body on a table to make sure we didn’t leave one of the baby’s tiny hands, a little foot, or arm, or shoulder, or a kidney, or a lung inside the mother’s body.

Those could cause an infection for the mother, which have often led to maternal deaths.

Make sure all parts are present and accounted for.

Gee! As I write about the procedcure, I’m asking myself: “How come this has to be a big deal? What does God care about taking sharp scissors and sticking them into an infant’s skull, or using a scalpel to pierce and dismember an infant?”

Brandon, you’re so right! We need to get over our silly squeamishness.

Sounds like a game plan to me! Let’s all do at least one abortion, just to get over ourselves.

And, right up until the ninth day of pregnancy, I say, if the Mom decides she can’t raise and doesnt the baby, I say, have a .45 on hand, out it comes and “BAM!” blow the baby’s brains out. Right then and there. Problem solved.

Thank you, Brandon, for showing us how not to get hung up on stuff that don’t matter.

.45s and scalpels. The answers to all life’s problems, Brandon. Thanks again!

Posted by Brandon on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 9:51 PM (EST):

I find it laughable that anyone would preach “Grace” when in fact it was another religious leader who condemned this act which undoubtedly saved the life of the mother. Religious zealots here would rather have seen this mother AND the child lose their life than allow this procedure to have taken place in a “Catholic” hospital. There is no sense in bringing armed services or non-citizens crossing into the United States because you’ll only cloud the issue with incompatible comparisons.

We in the United States have a standard of medical care which is required by law. If a woman is in distress, our hospitals and medical professionals are duty and law-bound to provide the best possible treatment to ensure the life of the mother, and if possible, the child. There is no getting around this simple fact.

As for calling a hospital Catholic—that has no bearing on the medical treatment provided or available. Have a religious component to the hospital is to provide patients (who desire it) access to religious healing and worship components. No monetary contributions are provided by the church. Catholic Healthcare West is a self-sufficient provider of medical care in several states across our country. If anything, they should be more obliged to follow the laws of our country as they do receive tax-payer dollars for their services.

By stripping a hospital of its tie to religious affiliation, the only people being hurt are the believers in Catholicism who may require service from this hospital and would be comforted by their faith in a time of need. The hospital is certainly not going to be negatively affected or have a lose of patients by some arbitrary removal of the title or decree from a power-hungry bishop.

What I find also quite interesting is that a single man deems in necessary to deny a hospital the right of calling itself “Catholic” purely as a means of comforting its patients for a single instance he deems contrary to Catholicism… but then we have numerous priests, bishops and other religious leaders in the Catholic church who have sexually violated parishioners and the church still seems to call them Catholic and in many cases, keeps them in their position of influence. Tell me, where is the equity in this treatment? How can a man who makes the same repeated violation still be deemed “Catholic” but a hospital who provides an ethically-sound medical treatment is somehow beyond the same level of belief and understanding?

I find nothing Graceful about this situation. I find the idea that anyone inserting their religious ideals onto a woman’s personal decision to save her own life is absurd. This bishop made a national issue while not having all the facts, nor the medical expertise to understand her situation. No one involved wanted to abort this child, that much is obvious. And for any of you who condemn the mother or the hospital in this horrible situation need to get a reality check. Look around the world, there are thousands of PEOPLE who are killed each day. For you to be worked up and insert your incorrect opinion about a pregnancy that was doomed from the beginning is beyond ridiculous. Go pay attention to your children, go volunteer at a homeless shelter, go do something that doesn’t make you look like a complete imbecile. This is none of your business, nor do you have enough facts to even have an opinion.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 9:43 PM (EST):

Fr. George, you misunderstand me.

Having thought over Pastor Brad’s remarks, it is I who now believe that persons of all denominations should blindly obey *ALL* civil laws.

If Pastor Brad doesn’t agree with me, now, that the civilly lawful order to do anything, including to torture POWs, and to cease and desist from providing relief to undocumented workers in the desert, any law of God notwithstanding, that we as Americans are bound to obey, then his position, compared to my own, is inconsistent.

That’s it. No more ad homs. He’s convince me he is right.

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 9:08 PM (EST):

Marion, Just because Pastor Brad, who none of us know offline to my knowledge, posted comments about this specific situation does not mean that he would advocate torture of POWs, etc., etc. or that he is serving another deity other than our God. Clergy, both Catholic and Protestant, are human and have diverse (and sometimes inconsistent) opinions. It’s fair, I think, to challenge Pastor Brad’s logic, his sources, and so on without resorting to personal attacks. That’s where one crosses the line and needs to confess. It is not a good witness for Our Savior.

It’s easy to judge the physicians, Sister McBride, the hospital administration because we were not present when this tragic situation took place. We are not, and legally never should be, privy to all the factors that led to this killing of the unborn child to save the mother. Just because some may like (or dislike) Bishop Olmsted’s decision does not make it right or wrong. People here, myself included, tend to see it as proper move, where The Bishop is being vilified over at The National Catholic Reporter.

Father Robert George

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:54 PM (EST):

Actually thereserita, your comments were very appropriate in my opinion. I would say that based on the post you wrote, there’s absolutely nothing to confess. Take a look at the comments following yours, however, and the tone gets extremely nasty—references to “Pastor of the god Moloch”, etc., etc. which were not in your posting.

In my opinion, Catholic Healhcare West, as a corporation, started down the path of compromise when they took over management of or welcomed into their network, non-religious, non-Catholic hospitals and apparently became major providers for Medicaid patients.

I’d have less of an issue with the non-Catholic hospital component of CHW if it changed its name especially since they apparently claim to adhere to the ERDs in their “Catholic Hospitals” while the “non-Catholic hospitals” adhere, supposedly, to a “shared statement of ethics and values” or some-such. How confusing for anyone to go to a “Non-Catholic” hospital operated by “Catholic Healthcare West”—I would assume Catholic hospital. Wouldn’t anyone?

God’s blessings to you and yours in 2011.

In Christ,

Father George

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:44 PM (EST):

P.S. Of course, all of these are TERRIBLE dilemmas, and ones I’m glad I don’t have to sort out.

Do harm? Or save lives?

A horrible dilemma!

Withhold assistance to those in desperate need? or obey Caesar?

What to do? What to do?

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:40 PM (EST):

I now see that those who advocate the torture of POWs may be acting according to their best conscience, and ought not to be blamed or called on the carpet. None of us is in Gitmo, thank God. None of us has to make those difficult decisions.

And a good thing, too.

Wouldn’t you hate to make those difficult decisions: mistreat prisoners? or save lives? Mistreat prisoners? Or save lives?

WHAT A DILEMMA!

If my son were in the U.S. military and were ordered to slip a leash over the head of a naked Al-Qeada captive and parade him around in order to humiliate him, break him, and get him to talk and thereby save lives, I now see it would be right to say to my son, “Follow orders, son. If your CO says to mistreat prisoners, you mistreat prisoners. Period. Obey the law.”

I’m sure glad I don’t have to make those difficult decisions! No, sir!

Oh! And also, those Catholic programs whereby water stations are set up in the Southwestern U.S. desert for undocumented Mexican workers making the crossing? Those are illegal, and those need to stop. Because U.S. laws state that giving aid and comfort to lawbreakers are illegal. It’s really preferable in the sight of God that undocumented Mexicans should die of dehydration than that we should break U.S. law.

I get that now.

Thank you.

Posted by thereserita on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:22 PM (EST):

Wow, Fr, I am more than happy to apologize to “Pastor Brad” if your last comment was directed at my comment and, indeed, my response to him was “sinful”, as you say. I will also forward it to my confessor and, if he agrees with your assessment, I’m very glad to “get to confession” as you advise. In re-reading my comment of earlier today, I kept my objection to his comment focused on the facts of healthcare in this country & not on his personality or personal characteristics per se. I have no knowledge of that. It is my assumption that comments based on fact are not “ad hominem” as you say but, again, I’ll leave that up to my spiritual director to decide. As far “feeling righteous in posting” it, I can honestly deny that feeling. In fact, I feel very sad in posting and would very very much rather not post at all but I cannot, in conscience, let a statement like “I’m personally opposed but…” go by without commenting on it any longer. Its that silence that has gotten us in the mess we’re obviously in right now.
That said, you’re input is appreciated and “may His light of peace shrine through” to you too!

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:06 PM (EST):

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 7:10 PM (EST):

Everyone, everyone:

As a Priest, I am dismayed at the venomous comments that some of you recently made in response to a posting by Brad, who identifies here as an ordained minister in The United Methodist Church.

I know that feelings run high on the abortion issue. I am, as a Priest, staunchly Pro-Life and support The Church’s anti-abortion position except in circumstances covered under Directive #47. My mother, a devout lifelong Roman Catholic, who attended daily mass and was active in groups at her parish until shortly before her death from ovarian cancer, told me, close to death, that unlike my father, she was pro-choice. Even though I know she was wrong on this, I’m sure she’s in heaven. I continued to love her and cherish her because she was a fine woman who, with my devout father, raised me in the Faith and supported me emotionally and spiritually when I entered Religious life even though, as an only child, it meant she was not going have any grandchildren. One can be wrong, seriously wrong on an issue (even as “hot” as this one) without being a servant of “old scratch” or any other name we might want to throw around.

Futhermore, no matter how strongly we feel, there is no reason to drop into ad hominem attacks which anyone who ever served on a debate team knows is NOT a valid response. It’s what people usually do when they have no valid response. Even if we believe Pastor Brad is wrong in this issue (abortion and how the hospital should have handled it), we do not know him well enough outside of his postings here. He may be a very godly person who, in other circumstances, preaches strongly The Word on Sunday and administers The Lord’s Supper according to the understanding in his faith community.

Because I am also a Licensed Clinical Social Worker as well as a Priest, I too have had to struggle in settings that were not “religious” between my faith and duties as a Priest and those of my secular responsibilities as a licensed therapist who is also a priest. And, I will tell you first hand, I had to find an ethical and moral way to deal with those conflicts. It’s not always easy.

In the Name of Christ, as witness to the love we are to practice as Christians, I beg those of you who have dropped into name calling to apologize and repent according to the dictates of The Scriptures and our Church Teaching—which, as Catholics, we believe is also inspired by God. I beg you, even if you believe that Pastor Brad is suggesting a compromise many couldn’t make.

Please, those of you who responded with such unchristian language, get yourself to Confession (as The Scripture and Church teaching reminds us) before receiving The Eucharist. For, even if Pastor Brad is wrong, two wrongs don’t make a right…and your responses are, bluntly, sinful and a bad, very bad, witness even if you feel righteous in posting them. Two wrongs, do not make a right.

None of us where there in the situation, Thank God. None of us have access to the medical records and cannot have access to the medical records or any discussion about the case that would violate the legally protected privacy of the patient. Neither does Bishop Olmsted. Health care privacy laws prevent that.

Some have said here and elsewhere that there were more expensive options to save the mother’s life without killing the unborn child. Those who write this, or say this, do not have access to the medical records in this specific case. It is presupposition and it may not be accurate in this specific situation. I do not remember anyone from the actual hospital or treatment team saying that, therefore we do not know that in this specific case, that is accurate. Just because that may be true in other medical cases, which we assume are similar, does not mean it was true in this case. Every situation is different.

As we’ve had this discussion, which is very LONG, I’ve expressed that I might have approved the decision that the hospital ethica committee—or maybe not.

I was not there in that place and in that time, but let’s show some GRACE here.

In Christ - may His light of peace shine through,

Father Robert George

Posted by Mark on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 4:25 PM (EST):

I heard for the past two years from the academic of Orthodox Christianity that liberalism of Cafeteria Christianity had just about runs it’s course in the circles of the majority and you will see it nearing it’s end of a failed experiment

Every 100 to 200 years since the ressurrection of Jesus Christ the Church hs experienced a revival of renewal by returning to the Word of God

The Church Triumphant and the Church Militant that represents God’s Word and Law before all else is returning on a road where everyone the people are all running the opposite way back to Egypt - A reverse Exodus of the Pagans forsaking the True bread of heaven as in the story of 1 Kings 19 and Elijah’s Victory Over Prophets of Baal

Bishop Olmsted is an Elijah
He knows the words of Jesus “For the time is coming where you will not be able to worship the Father on this mountain nor in Jersusalem”

A people that have foresaken the supernatural that God could have saved the both of them. They proclaimed for I know better than God and what God wants and i know better than the Church and his prophets

To YOU I say one day you will confess with your tongue on your knee at the throne the meaning of those words you will not say out loud

The true Orthodox Christian says doctor try your best to save them both and MY GOD WILL DO THE REST

The news that a Bishop of our Church has stood up for biblical law
(1 Jer 3: 3-5 I knew you before you were born I consecrated you )
and said this hospital is not longer Catholic

Makes me very proud to stand amongst my elders and peers and say
There are few days like today that make me feel proud to be Catholic in the mighty mighty name of Jesus

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 4:05 PM (EST):

You’re right, L. Roy. Remember the Bible story of the wicked king who wanted to force the seven brothers to eat pork, against the commandment of God? All seven chose death rather than to break the law of God.

Our early Christian martyrs chose death, too, rather than sacrifice to the pagan gods.

Undoubtedly, some here would have been in the cheering section for the pagans! “Kill those Christians! If the king tells you to eat pork, or to sacrifice to the gods, then that’s what you must do! Away with them! Off with their heads.”

And today: “If the government tells you to slaughter the innocent unborn, then you must do so. Or close down.”

That’s not the United States of American that my forefathers fought and risked their lives for. That’s more like the former Soviet Union. Or Nazi Germany.

“Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated,” is the threat of every totalitarian regime back to the dawn of time. I hope and pray that one day soon, America will turn back from continuing down the path to becoming a totalitarian regime, and will awaken once again to a new-found respect for the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Better death by firing squad than to transgress the laws of God. Better the rack, the rope, the lions than to murder the innocent.

Posted by LRoy on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 3:38 PM (EST):

“The Bishop wanted the hospital to commit to breaking the laws of
the United States of America, in refusing safe, legal and recommended
medical care to dying mothers in failed and fatal pregnancies.
He has admitted defeat here, as I see it, and again I thank God.
May all Catholic hospitals throughout the country be encouraged,
by this,to stand up to bishops who seek to interfere with the laws of the United States of America.”

Sorry, but the laws of God overrides those of the United States of America (or any other country for that matter). I would gladly and freely break a USA law if it meant preserving the Church’s teaching in all matters. Better to lose my life on earth than lose my soul after death.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 3:33 PM (EST):

“If your hospital objects to performing abortions in cases in which the government demands they be performed, then your hospital should:

A. Yield to the wicked demands of the corrupt government.

B. Close down the hospital.

C. Pray for the conversion of sinners.

D. Take it to the streets! Don’t close down; don’t butcher infants! Go to court; fire up the blogs; lobby; make phone calls; demonstrate; get out the vote.

E. C & D

Creatures of iniquity and servants of the Evil One will vote for A. The weak will vote for B. I vote for E.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:56 AM (EST):

Pastor Brad, you have clarified for us that Caesar is your god, that the God of Moses, the God of Israel, the God who says, “Thou shalt not kill!” is a god to be set aside and to be ignored. Which you have done. May God help you. Creature of Caesar, if the laws of the United States require and demand that members of the military torture and sodomize prisoners of war, I suppose, that you would back this to the hilt, and would say to a young Catholic recruit who refuses to commit abominations upon POWs even when ORDERED to do so by the savagery and brutaltiy of a corrupt military establishment:

“you must comply. Stand court-martialed. Or get out. Leave the service.”

I suppose your finding, man of Caesar, had you been one of the judges at Nueremberg, where the SS guards who tortured and killed innocent Jewish men, women, and children, under orders from their government, would have been very different from the findings of the men and women who actually retained . . .

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE BEFORE THE LAWS OF ALMIGHTY GOD OVER AND ABOVE THE ORDERS AND COMMANDS OF SINFUL MEN. . .

and who imposes and demanded this same standard of the men serving in the military, even within Nazi Germany, on pain of death.

No doubt, no doubt, Pastor Brad (Pastor of the god Moloch), you would have let the Nazi war crimes defendants off the hook. After all they were “following the lawful orders of their government.” That was their excuse.

And that, for you, is the bottom line.

God said, “thou shalt not kill the defenseless innocent.” Period.

My fathers going way back served honorably in the U.S. military, and Arlington National is our “family burial ground.” I am proud of their service. . . then. When this country and its laws still reflected the laws of God.

If I had sons today of draft age - today - when things are so very different, I would buy them all plane tickets to Canada or Sweden, God help me. To keep them away from those who would attempt to force them to do what you would like to do - steamroller over the consciences of the people of God to comply with the directives of evildoers who are in power.

God help our country. God save the United States of America. God save us from you, Pastor Brad, servant of the Evil One.

Posted by thereserita on Saturday, Jan 1, 2011 8:30 AM (EST):

” I am personally opposed to abortion, but..”
Pastor Brad,
Please be advised that there is no logical rationale for your statement quoted above. If you don’t believe me, substitute the word ‘slavery’ for the word ‘abortion’. Now does the sentence make any sense? If you are, as you say, ‘personally opposed’, then you must, at some level, believe abortion is wrong. And so it is. The CIVIL law never trumps GOD’S law, as a pastor, I’m sure you understand that precept. I’ve been a nurse practitioner working in this broken healthcare ‘system’ for more years than I care to remember. Let me assure you of these facts of life:
1. Healthcare in this country is driven by dollars.
2. As disc’d earlier in this long thread, there was another treatment option available to this mother other than the death of her child but that option was very costly.
3. If the hospital administrators were unaware of the alternative treatment options, they should not have been. In a court of law, any medical practitioner is judged according treatment administered in accordance with current standards of practice. I.e., ignorance is no excuse.
4. ANY hospital calling itself Catholic is liable to deliver Catholic care just as any bottle of aspirin you buy should be aspirin & not acetaminophen. As the Apostles said in Acts, we are required to serve God first (not civil law).
In short, Olmstead is well within his rights/duty to do what he did. No matter what the government or ACLU says. Period.

@Susan Peterson:
Since this thread is already too long, I just have to add that I’ve thought many many times over the last ten years about your question re: the Catholic Church going back to the original charism of the healing orders of centuries ago. I often wonder if there are already groups somewhere doing this, how it could be financed given the state of the art of healthcare today without getting in bed with the gov’t etc. Very good question!!!!

My daughter is a nursing supervisor at a major hospital. Healthcare professionals must abide by the guidelines of their secular professional associations and licensing boards. Their first responsibility is to their identified patient within the confines of their codes of ethics (as defined by their state licensing boards and their professional associations). All legit hospitals in this country are licensed by the state in which they are located and most are accredited by relevant professional accreditation boards. These do not include the Roman Catholic Church or The United Methodist Church or any other ecclesiastical authority. Under no circumstances could the hospital allow a review by the The Catholic Archdiocese under current federal and state regulations in Arizona where the hospital is located, and where my daughter works (for another hospital). Under no circumstances, short of a signed release from the surviving woman could the hospital legally release the medical records to Bishop Olmsted or release any information beyond what would not identify the patient or give specific details as to her treatment. There’s no legal or ethical way around this.

Given what we know, based on what the hospital released, Sister McBride made the appropriate decision regardless of Roman Catholic dogma. It would be true of a United Methodist pastor, deacon or deaconess that made the same decision regardless of our religious teaching or any violation of The Book of Discipline.

Period. If the Roman Catholic Church’s leadership cannot accept that, then the Roman Catholic Church should get out of the healthcare business.

Period.

Church Directives have no legal standing, Thank God, in The United States. Yours or mine (United Methodist).

I am personally opposed to abortion, but I still believe that the medical professionals and hospital’s responsibility was to follow State Law and secular Professional Codes of Ethics under ALL circumstances without exception because these professionals are licensed by the State and members of professional associations and as long as the hospital is legally licensed by Arizona and is accredited. No exceptions. Your denomination’s doctrine is not law of this land and neither is mine.

“Would there even be any way for a new order to start engaging in charitable health care on Catholic principles as the early nursing orders did? Or is this now financially and legally impossible?”

Now that Caesar has embraced the worship of Moloch, the day may soon arrive that hospitals, unless they promise to butcher the innocent when Caesar orders them to do so, will be precluded from caring for the sick and injured.

The question for hospitals and health care workers then becomes: Civil disobedience? or shut down?

How far will Caesar go to prosecute his demand that all health care facilities now must partake of such butchery? That none shall remain unstained to serve as a rebuke to those who win Caesar’s favor with their bloodthirst?

Thirty years ago, Caesar was not yet entirely Moloch’s creature. But, now . . . now, I believe he is.

Entirely.

This may mean an end Catholic health care - at least, to OB-GYN-related care.

But Jesus did not come to institute a health care system. Nor is health care the Church’s primary mission.

Posted by Susan F Peterson on Friday, Dec 31, 2010 10:06 PM (EST):

Some things I have read since I started following this situation make me wonder if there isn’t another layer of evil to consider.

This may have been addressed on this very long thread, but I think it bears repeating. If abortion is considered an acceptable solution to this medical dilemma, then it is certainly the cheapest solution, and if it is the cheapest solution, then it is the one that Medicaid or an insurance company is going to be most willing to pay for. I read that this woman had presented earlier and refused an abortion, and that under Medicaid protocols there was no other treatment offered her. This woman was a patient in the hospital program for people on Medicaid, and to do so they had to follow Medicaid treatment protocols. If this is true, it becomes a different sort of story entirely. It becomes an evil much more premeditated, and much more about money than about compassion.

The true details of this story are very difficult to discover, so I don’t know if this is true. But I did read in general that it is especially in this Medicaid program that all sorts of morally unacceptable things were happening in this “healthcare” system. I think the Bishop was well informed when he decided this hospital could no longer be called Catholic. That is a good thing…but on the other hand, it still has the name of a saint, and it will still be doing these things.

Would there even be any way for a new order to start engaging in charitable health care on Catholic principles as the early nursing orders did? Or is this now financially and legally impossible?

Susan Peterson

Posted by Mike Petrik on Friday, Dec 31, 2010 9:22 PM (EST):

Understood and agreed, Father George. Prayer for all involved is in order. I recognize that this was a very difficult situation and can certainly understand the impulse to rationalize, but it is extremely disappointing to read and hear such rationalizations from people who were not close to the situation and who should certainly know better. What Sister MM did was horribly wrong, but certainly forgivable. I seriously doubt that the hospital’s Catholicity would be in question if the leadership had simply owned up to a moral error committed under very difficult circumstances. Instead, their pride and self-righteousness appears to blind them. Very sad.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec 31, 2010 9:07 PM (EST):

@ Mike Petrik and Marion (Mael Muire),

I don’t disagree with either of you.

I think that many Religious and Secular clergy, sisters and nuns who are working in what are essentially the Church’s equivalent of “corporate America” may forget that their first allegiance is to God and The Church.
And I am truly sad that an unborn child was killed in all this. And I prayer for everyone involved.

Father George

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec 31, 2010 8:55 PM (EST):

@ Susan Peterson, I personally agree with you. I asked my colleague, in the same conversation, what he thought was the proper PASTORAL response in this situation. He was silent and then responded that his concern would be to protect the hospital from the secular consequences so that it could continue it’s Christian mission. In other words, he had no response and I think that speaks volumes.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Friday, Dec 31, 2010 5:25 PM (EST):

Well-known formerly Catholic author earlier in this thread spewed forth congratulations and rationalizations for the shameful and disgusting practice of attacking the life of the infant in the womb to safeguard the health or life of the mother. All in the name, she pronounced, of “freedom!”, “progress” “health care!”, “womanhood!”, “The United States!”

She invoked everything but Motherhood and Apple Pie to justify abortion and infanticide in these difficult cases.

Despicable.

How very similar such persons are to the faithless ones of the Old Testament. In the name of safety, of security, of prosperity, of victory for the people of God over their enemies, our Hebrew spiritual forebears were willing to adopt the ways of the surrounding pagan peoples, to sacrifice to their idols, to erect altars on mountaintops to those foreign gods and worship them there, to frequent temple prostitutes of these pagan gods, and to sacrifice their infants to the god Moloch. All in the name of “Peace!” of “Restoration!” of “Hedging Our Bets!” How grand, how noble, how unafraid they were! How lofty their arguments, how persuasive their rebuttals to the priests of Israel how dared to tell them “no!”

“Do not listen to the foolish and backward prophets of God!” these enlightened leaders told the people some 4,000 years ago. “They know nothing of the difficulties we are facing! We must embrace the gods of the peoples of the land, and follow their ways, to have peace and prosperity. If you listen to these backward prophets of the Lord God who led us out of Egypt and now leaves us alone to face the people of the land, disaster will befall you.”

And so the people listened to their corrupt and wicked leaders’ noble and eloquent and false words and inveigling and lying speech, and did what was evil in the sight of God. They consented to do what the people of God must never do, to call evil good, and good evil.

And here again is an author, a skilled crafter of words, who uses noble and lofty language to proclaim that evil is good, and good evil.

Beware! Beware of lying, deceitful tongues and treacherous lips dripping honeyed and gilded venom . . . to lead the people of God astray.

Posted by Mike Petrik on Friday, Dec 31, 2010 4:44 PM (EST):

Father Robert,
Your highly credentialed lawyer-priest friend seems to regard murder as just some technical doctrine violation. This is really pretty outrageous. Honestly, the moral reasoning here is not that difficult; it is only the consequences that tempt us into thinking it is difficult. As I mentioned earlier and have emphasized repeatedly, I am very sympathetic to Sister MM’s predicament. I don’t know if I would have had the moral fortitude to do the right thing myself. But I’m not so intellectually dishonest as to insist that direct abortion is the right thing because the consequences are so much better. This friend of yours seems to hold that it is ok to murder someone if you could get in serious trouble with the law if you don’t. His reasoning is as transparently lame as that of the putatively Catholic theologian who has asserted that it is ok to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being as long that human being is already terminal (i.e, is dying) and you have a really good reason. What rank sophistry. Quite shameful really. In my opinion these “experts” are quite possibly far more guilty of grevious sin than Sister MM, who was in the midst of an emotionally charged situation rendering dispassionate analysis and decision-making exceedingly difficult.

Posted by Mike Petrik on Thursday, Dec 30, 2010 10:53 PM (EST):

Agreed, Susan. This highly-perfumed doctor-priest is an embarrassment to both vocations. The question has nothing to do with pissing off church officials etc, but the fact that he frames it that way speaks volumes about his moral compass. It is actually quite stunning.

Posted by Susan Peterson on Thursday, Dec 30, 2010 9:28 PM (EST):

‘His exact words were: “Catholic dogma, Bishop’s wishes, be damned! With the prospect of major litigation, accrediation and licensing on the line, all he would advise any hospital in that position, to do what it needed to do to save the mother and to justify it, if needed, to any Catholic authorities the best the hospital could. Pissing off Church officials or violating doctrine is a small price to pay compared to all the non-religious consequences such a hospital could face had it allowed the mother to die when she could be saved.”’

I suppose that is the right answer for him to give as a lawyer, but what answer would he give as a priest?

When we talk about consequences, those which are eternal would seem to outweigh all others.

Susan Peterson

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 30, 2010 9:04 PM (EST):

@ Mike Petrik: Unrelated to our discussions here, I was speaking bu phone to friend in another Relgious order who earned advanced degrees in health care administration and is an attorney as well as a Priest. Unlike me, he currently works in the field and is not in parish ministry. I told him about our lengthy convesations here and asked if he had any thoughts. What I suspected was true and this makes this an even more difficult situation for Saint Joseph’s (prior to its decertification as a “Catholic Hosptial”)and, I would suspect, other Catholic hospitals.

In the situation that you posited:Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Under secular law, in most states, medical association rules, national accreditation regulations and a host of other externally enforced policies, the hospital would generally be required to do anything—including direct abortion—so that the mother can live since secular rules and regulations and accrediting agencies do not have the same understanding of an unborn child (just a fetus in the world’s eyes) that we Catholics do.

His exact words were: “Catholic dogma, Bishop’s wishes, be damned! With the prospect of major litigation, accrediation and licensing on the line, all he would advise any hospital in that position, to do what it needed to do to save the mother and to justify it, if needed, to any Catholic authorities the best the hospital could. Pissing off Church officials or violating doctrine is a small price to pay compared to all the non-religious consequences such a hospital could face had it allowed the mother to die when she could be saved.”

I’m not happy about that and I think he’s morally wrong, from a perspective of our Church teaching, but probably legally correct. It certainly would match my understanding from my “secular” licensing as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker.

So that means, in effect, unless Directive 47 applies, Catholic Hospitals faced with these situations face a conundrum.

I’m glad I’m not the decision maker in such cases.

Father Robert George

Posted by Mike Petrik on Wednesday, Dec 29, 2010 3:09 PM (EST):

Let’s accept the facts posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:59 AM (EST); they seem quite plausible to me. But I do not see how they alter the ethical calculus at all. All it does is clarify that the hospital was confronted with two dying patients. The baby could not be saved, but the mother could be saved but only by aborting the baby. So let’s unpack that:

Assume that it is known to a moral certainty that the only available options were either (i) do nothing and both mother and baby die or (ii) directly kill the baby so that the mother can live.

Catholic teaching is clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. That is the point of Directive 45. Catholic teaching does, however, permit in some cases the indirect taking of a life under the principle of double effect. This is the point of Directive 47. But the key is the word “effect.” In order to be permitted the action cannot be the direct taking of the life (i.e., an abortion). But instead the action must be a treatment of the mother than has as an indirect consequence the (i.e., the second effect) of death, even the foreseeable or inevitable death, of the baby. This is why a pregnant mother can ingest medicines or receive therapies directed to curing a pathology even though such medicines or therapies are understood to be harmful, or even lethal, to the baby. Based on the facts as reported in the Hospital’s own statement it appears that the procedure approved was a direct abortion prohibited under Directive 45 and not a non-abortive procedure permitted under Directive 47.

The Hospital appeared to have tried to suggest that Directive 47 permits direct abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother (at least if it is understood that the baby will eventually die anyway), but such a suggestion is not tenable. The meaning of Directive 47 is well-established and fully understood by all competent ethicists. Accordingly, it does appear that the Hospital violated its own Directives and in doing so also violated rather unambiguous Catholic moral teaching.

Some have asserted that Catholic moral teaching is simply wrong in this case, and therefore the Hospital should be congratulated for its courage to follow the consciences of its Ethics Committee rather than Church teaching. In particular, these critics of Church teaching claim that at the very least the teaching is inadequate to address this rather rare situation in which the baby was going to die regardless whether option (i) or (ii) is elected. This analysis is basically one of consequentialism, which evaluates moral choices by examining outcomes. In other words the ends justify the means. Many moral thinkers have advanced this utilitarian approach, but the approach has be explicitly rejected by the Church.

The Church’s view can perhaps better be crystallized by the following hypothetical: Gunman breaks into home. He tells mother that he will kill both husband and daughter unless mother shoots and kills daughter, in which case husband will live. Mother is confronted with two outcomes: one with both daughter and husband dead, the other with just daughter dead. Catholic moral teaching plainly would not permit Mother to kill her innocent daughter, even though daughter would die anyway.

Another hypothetical: Pregnant mother is dying and unconscious. Baby can be saved, but only by directly killing mother (in other words, there is no treatment of the baby as such — or the mother). Catholic moral teaching would not permit the direct killing of the mother, even if such killing allowed the baby to survive and even if baby and mother would both die otherwise.

Yet another: Soldier in the battlefield encounters dying comrade in great pain. Only option to end his comrade’s misery is to kill him. Catholic teaching is clear that the soldier cannot directly kill his comrade even to remove him from his torment and even if requested by the comrade to do so. Noble reasons may mitigate the culpability of a sin, but they do not alter Catholic teaching’s directive the taking the direct and intentional taking of a human life is always morally impermissible.

Last one: Terrible war is raging. In order to secure a just victory our army will have to take up to one million casualties and enemy casualties would include ten times that number with many innocent civilians as “collateral damage.” One bomb successfully and intentionally targeted at 50,000 innocent civilians (not a military target) would force a peace. Catholic teaching would not permit such direct and intentional bombing of innocent civilians, even though it is believed with great confidence that many more lives would be saved.

Now, admittedly these are all very tough cases. And I would never judge the soul of those who would lack the moral fortitude to resist the temptation to commit an immoral act under such horrible circumstances. And I am certainly sympathetic to the position that Sister McBride was in. I don’t know what I would have done under her circumstances; just as I don’t know what I would have done in Truman’s shoes. I’m just a sinner relying on God’s mercy. That said, I would not try to explain to God or His Church why my intentional taking of an innocent life was not a sin. Good people do and can commit sin in order to obtain good outcomes, and it is tempting indeed to conflate good outcomes with good reasons. This appears to be what the Hospital did. While moral utilitarians are free to disagree (they view good outcomes and good reasons as more or less coterminous), as are those who do not regard an unborn baby as human life, the moral calculus under Catholic teaching and our Creator’s Natural law is quite clear.

It has been reported that Sister McBride also agrees that she made a moral error, and that her excommunication has been lifted. If so, that is exceedingly happy news.

Posted by Father George Robert on Wednesday, Dec 29, 2010 6:41 AM (EST):

In the above, I should have said THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, this publication, rather than the Catholic Register, which I think is a publication from Canada.

Father George

Posted by Father George Robert on Wednesday, Dec 29, 2010 1:58 AM (EST):

AN UNOFFICIAL REQUEST -
SUPPORT THE CATHOLIC REGISTER
(I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE CATHOLIC REGISTER)
AND COMMENTS….

I want to encourage any of you who can to donate to this worthy apostolate. As a Religious, my personal spending money is limited to enough to get toiletries and a few personal items. I am, however, looking to see how I might help and I’ve asked a friend of mine who operates a Christian web hosting company that specifically serves mainline Protestant and Catholic congregations if he would consider donating web space or giving it to these wonderful people at a reduced cost.

Carl says I jokingly referred to myself as a “liberal”. I am really not as my pastoral responses show, but there are plenty of folks in our pews and in our pulpits who truly ARE (look at the responses over at The National Catholic Reporter for example). Some of these true liberals are in my own community and home.

I think I used to be a “liberal”, but I think that really nearly 30 years in ordained ministry has shown me that, while those who identify as such often make some valid points, they sway too much into the muddy waters of moral relativism (as Carl has been arguing). This, I think, was never the intent, I think, of Rahner et al—even with all the things we might agree or disagree with them. It is, as Carl pointed out, one of the results. One of the unintended results.

Blessings to you all.

FATHER GEORGE

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 6:55 PM (EST):

gratuitous 600th post

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 3:29 PM (EST):

FOR A LAUGH—SADLY

Just as a side note—LOL—you all might want to look at the caliber of discussion going on at The National Catholic Reporter website. It appears to be a bunch of folks bashing the Bishop and patting each other on the back, with an occasional voice challenging those who immediately started bashing Bishop Olmsted ad hominem rather than valid theological and religious discussion as we’ve been engaging in here.

It’s sad really but I guess it reflects the audience / readers. Probably many of those people would never read The Register or this visit this website because it’s L.C. <grin>

In Christ, may His Light shine on all of us—especially the Bishops and His Holiness.

Fr. George

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 3:12 PM (EST):

David,

I personally believe that what appear to be Sacred Teachings or, Sacred Traditions, in the Church do change because some of these are actually “human traditions” mistaken as Sacred Traditions. The Church has both and sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, both laity and clergy confuse the two. This is where the editor of U.S. Catholic, which is published by a religious order, makes his mistake in the examples that he sites.

It is true that Catholic doctrines do evolve as understanding of the world and the universe changes. This reflects not a change in the essential Teachings of the Church, but an updated expression of these reflecting the new insights. Some might argue, correctly, I think that “evolution denotes change” and to some extent that’s correct but not in the way that the editor of U.S. Catholic seems to think.

No, David, I’m not playing word games here and much of this, I’m sure, is odd from a Lutheran perspective.

@ Elaine, you make excellent points. Catholic theologians and secular therapists both hold to concept of “moral development”, that is that a person’s morality develops, or matures over a period of time. While the process differs somewhat among theorists, many accept the basic concepts of Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, which is instrumental in education and child psychology circles.

James Fuller, in his classic work STAGES OF FAITH (1981) and subsequent research that he and others conducted proposed a similar model of the development of religious faith. It was in this context, of moral development and faith development, that Pope Benedict was speaking. The sex worker, by using a condom to protect his or her, client may be showing the signs of developing a more mature morality by accepting responsibility to keep the client and the sex worker him/herself safer through the use of condoms.

In Christ,

Fr. George

Posted by Mary H on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 12:23 PM (EST):

Thank you Bishop for taking a stand for what is right. Wish more church leaders would take such a stand, be they Catholic or Protestant. Thank You again. You are in my prayers.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 11:57 AM (EST):

Hello David,

The pope is not going to change Church teaching on the use of condoms in an interview with a journalist.

Look for changes of that caliber, if they happen, from Church synods or encyclicals.

Posted by Edward Walsh on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 9:57 AM (EST):

Solidarity with Bishop Olmstead! He is doing his duty! He is clearly exposing the Judas’. We need more me like him!

Posted by Elaine on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 3:23 AM (EST):

Catholic doctrines evolve BUT they do NOT change. No doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church has changed since it’s inception around the year 33CE. First of all Pope Benedict began his statement with the word, PERHAPS. No dogma, encyclical etc. has ever began with the word PERHAPS. All he is saying is the sinner (the mp) may be showing a slightly higher level of moral responsibility and awareness by using the condom than if he showed no concern for his partner and didn’t use one.

A TRUTH IS ALWAYS A TRUTH EVEN IF NO ONE BELIEVES IT
A LIE IS ALWAYS A LIE EVEN IF EVERYONE BELIEVES IT

Posted by David on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 3:10 AM (EST):

Carl and Father G,

I wasn’t thinking you were impinging on Father G’s character so much as what he believed. Both of you got a prob tho, now that you’re all buddy-buddy. Your Pope now catches up with the rest of society and says that condoms might be the moral thing to do to keep HIV from spreading through male hustlers and female hookers. Cool enough and everybody knows that, and I think the editor of U.S. Catholic that Father G linked above is right and Father G is wrong when he says the Pope didn’t declare a change. I mean, you guys think he’s Christ on earth or at least the best, represenative of Christ on earth, so if he speaks and then the Vatican clarifies it, it’s just political B.S.—CYA as the phrase goes.

I mean I think this is a good example, as the others made in the US Catholic article of the principle that things change and Church doctrines evolve in light of new understandings? And if so, what’s so bad about the hospital in Arizona saving the woman’s life by aborting the pregnacy?

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 2:18 AM (EST):

[continued]

One of the reasons that I tended to answer the position of Catholicism and conscience in the way that I did was because at one point in my ministry, I did a lot of pastoral work and some social work with people living with HIV and their loved ones.

This put me in an usual situation as a Priest who fully supports the intent and teachings of our Church on human sexuality (even though many my colleagues and our leaders failed to live up to these positions). As a Priest, I do not condone pre-marital sex nor homosexual sexual activity inside or outside of same-sex relationships. I would truly prefer that married couples used natural family planning methods—which I know are medically imperfect—rather than use IUDs, condoms and other birth control methods.

However, in working with HIV+ affected individuals and their families, I had to deal with issues of public health and my code of ethics through the National Association of Social Workers and the state licensing boards. These sometimes came into direct conflict with what I believe and teach as a devout Catholic vis-a-vis contraception, yet it was my religious community and my duties that placed me in such a situation.

Despite stereotypes, many of those with whom I worked were NOT homosexual. Many were married where one partner (usually the husband) was HIV+ and the wife was not. Ideally they would live in a sexually abstinant way because that is still the absolutely safest way not to contract HIV and other STDs, but that was often unrealistic. So this is where I reflected on Church teaching in “an informed way” and in special circumstances found myself recommending—indeed insisting—on the moral obligations to use condoms to protect the HIV negative spouse within the marital bed. I did discuss this approach with my religious superiors, my own spiritual director, and the Bishop of the diocese which was funding the program. All approved of the approach given the unique circumstances of the population in which I was dealing.

I was cautioned by the diocese however, to make absolutely certain that individuals understood that this was disease prevention not birth control and that if a cure for HIV was ever found, these couples, as Catholics, were to return either natural family planning methods and to cease condom use once the infected spouse no longer had HIV.

I was also told that while I could carefully remind homosexuals that they too had a moral obligation not to infect anyone else with this deadly disease, the moral way to do that is to follow Church teaching and practice celibacy. I was told that I could mention that from a secualar standpoint, which did not mean that The Church or I condoned, active homosexual behavior, if an HIV+ person engaged in sexual activity with another person, they should follow “Safer Sex” procedures and always use a condom.

I was to use a similar approach to those who were sexually active HIV heterosexuals.

At the time, my reflection on conscience (plus the fact that I had discussed this with my superiors and the the diocese) made it possible for me to do this. In effect, to those people who were doing same-sex relationships or out of wedlock permiscious activity…

What you are doing is sinful. It is contrary to God’s will. However, you should not compound the sin by harming another—perhaps exposing the other(s) to a deadly disease, therefore you have a moral obligation to protect your partner. Use a condom.

U.S. Catholic’s editor then tries to use the quotes, taken out of context, of course, to justify the Principle of Dis-Continuity which Carl and I have been speaking about so much here. While not saying such, the editor, who penned the article, seems to imply that the Pope followed his conscience after reflecting on church teaching in an informed way and changed church teaching—effectively overriding the Objective Teachings of The Church.

That’s a wrong impression. Neither what the Pope said (dealing with the subject of prostitution) nor what I did in ministry to and with those who were HIV+ and their loved ones disregarded Church teaching or changed it regardless of how much some might wish to see it that way. Both are the type of situations that I was thinking of when I wrote my original comments about the Catholic teaching on Conscience, but really each are just unique pastoral applications of traditional Church Teachings. That’s important. The Vatican clarified The Pope’s remarks the following day to make certain that everyone understood that the Pope was providing a pastoral application not declaring a change in Church Teaching.

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010 1:07 AM (EST):

Dear Carl and Everyone

I have asked permission to add a discussion board to our community website. Although I’ve been “anonymous” on this board like most of us, the issues we’re discussing—all of us—are important beyond responses to the very tragic situation at St. Joseph’s.

If I receive such person I will post a link here.

Carl, I do think that we’d get along famously and I actually like our online discussions, with everyone here. I also hate to admit it <grin> but I’m almost positive that you are correct that the Priest who would counsel that I was too “conservative” and to disregard sound pastoral advise which is consistent with The Church’s position probably would use almost my exact phrasing. Because in this conversation, I realized something. In classrooms and online forums, I tend to still give that answer about conscience , because of course, that IS what I was taught (and yes it does reflect Rahner, et al). It’s ingrained in my memory.

In reality, however, I’ve become what many would call a more “conservative Catholic” at least in real pastoral practice where it counts. As many of you probably noticed in my response to Carl (if anyone is still reading), my pastoral response in real situation really does not reflect the premise that one can really follow conscience that conflicts with Church Teaching even after studying “in an informed way”. In other words, I realize there is a disconnect between what I teach or profess on the topic as others would apply it compared to what I actually DO which is much more conservative and “party line”.

My conversations with all of you have had an unintended effect in that I probably will NEVER again phrase an answer about the Roman Catholic position on conscience in the same way as I have in the past. After nearly 30 years in ministry, much of it in both parish and academic settings, that’s quite a thing for me to say and it’s quite humbling.

I think that, while I am influenced by Rahner’s analysis and theories, I never crossed a line that many have. Such a position, taken to the extreme allows groups like Catholics for Choice and Dignity to claim that their members are still “good, practicing Catholics” who are “loyal dissenters”. The truth is both of these organizations support positions either on “reproductive issues” (abortion rights) or “human sexuality” (sexually active homosexuality) which are contrary to Church teachings and how Catholics are to understand the teachings of Christ.

[continued]

Posted by Carl on Monday, Dec 27, 2010 1:41 PM (EST):

BTW,

As to this last comment of your:

“On the other hand, The Church has a number of practices and non-essential traditions which have been elevated to the level of Sacred Tradition or confused by many people as Sacred Tradition when really some of these are traditions, but not Sacred Traditions.

I truly think that by reassessing some of these and adapting those which are adiphoria (not essential for salvation) would allow The Church to reach more people in this current society while strengthening public respect for, and understanding, of the Magisterium.”

Excellent point! Wherever there is freedom of prudence which allows us to act and present the Faith in a more nimble manner, we should utilize it.

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by Carl on Monday, Dec 27, 2010 1:16 PM (EST):

Continued . . .

Here is the thing Father: looking over your comments, I think you and I are actually approaching a modern crisis that has TWO facets, and we are, in our discussion, emphasizing one or the other when we should be upholding BOTH. You wrote the following about the young man who addressed you after mass:

“He said that although he liked me personally, he and his friends were “laughing” at the situation at St. Joseph’s and really didn’t care or respect anything that ANY Bishop has to say because “they’re old men, who aren’t supposed to have sex and either molest kids or let other priests molest kids” and can’t marry but think they can set rules about issues, like marriage, birth control, about which most of us priests have no personal first hand experience.”

This gentleman has TWO issues going on. One is that he is rightly disgusted by, and reacting to, the hypocritical moral behavior he sees among the clergy and bishops. Both you and Carolyn and Anne are absolutely right to shout this on the rooftops. The behavior of our shepards (which is against the objective moral law) has scandalized millions within and without the Church. This has tragically obscured the face AND TRUTH of Christ, embodied therein, and made it much more difficult to get a fair hearing for the riches of the Catholic Faith. So far as that is your main point – count me in!

BUT, the OTHER thing going on in this young man’s mind is that he (and his classmates) apparently does not think ANYONE has authority to speak the truth regarding marriage, birth control, etc., etc, etc. In short, he is a product of his culture in regards to truth in ethics. I submit, WE CANNOT REACH THIS YOUNG MAN’S DEEPEST SPIRITUAL PROBLEM by merely sympathizing with his disgust at clerical hypocrisy – as awful as that reality may be. Imagine that the bishops and popes had acted with almost perfect moral fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Faith over the last 70 years. I tell you that this young man’s attitude toward objective truth in morals would STILL be a huge cultural obstacle to his conversion – though, of course, the moral fidelity of the hierarchy would go a long way towards making the Catholic case more palatable to the modern mind.

Even the material from Putnam shows the same thing:

“Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of “intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views,” and therefore stopped going to church.”

Looking at that statement carefully: viewing “organized religion” as a source of “intolerance” is a symptom of culture-wide moral relativism (such relativism is the new orthodoxy in the modern secular academy – heterodox beware - as I can attest through experience). It’s not ONLY a matter of bad bishops – though that may b part of the story. The problem is intellectual, spiritual and deep rooted; healing for this sort of problem is not advanced by sanctifying secular subjectivism within the walls of the Church, which is what “existential ethics” does.

The fact is that we need to speak the truth in love, even to our spiritual leaders. However, the very first thing we need, in order to do that, is a firm grasp on WHAT the truth is, and WHERE it can be found. The best case against Catholicism is, and always has been, Catholics! Evangelizing culture has always been impeded by sin in the Church, especially when sin is found within the hierarchy. Still, I am not sure we should be all that shocked at this reality. As early as the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, fully 1/12th of the episcopate was in formal apostasy!

I could not agree more that current events have made the task of the priest, and even the lay Catholic, MUCH more difficult. I simply think we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to charitably but powerfully defend the truth; while at the same time speaking out against infidelity wherever we find it. What we need are saints! However, today we need saints in the modern world who are not just “all heart”. We need saints whose hearts and heads are working in perfect harmony, because our culture is in crisis on both fronts.

I will continue to pray as well. May God bless you in all that you do!

Pax et Bonum,

Carl

Posted by Carl on Monday, Dec 27, 2010 1:14 PM (EST):

Dear Fr. George,

Thanks you once again for taking the time to offer the various examples of pastoral care that you did. I would like to say a couple things on a personal note. You wrote:

“a conservative, orthodox Catholic struggles with this because even if he or she does not like a particular cleric, he or she understands the nature of Ordination as understood by Catholics and respects the Office if not the particular man.”

I am, of course, happy to be described as a conservative, orthodox Catholic, and so yes, I very much respect the office. But also, given our discussion, and especially your poignant description of various pastoral encounters I LIKE you quite a bit as well (not that I think you were insinuating that I did not)! I have a hunch that we would get along famously discussing these very issues over a few beers and a steak dinner. That fact highlights one of the most beautiful aspects of our Catholic Faith; namely, the ability to remain family even when we disagree. Families survive and stay united, not by ignoring issues but by open and forthright discussion. I also know it is often true that those who proclaim a desire to defend “orthodoxy” are often very wrong – even when they are right! That is, their inability to “speak the truth in love”, to take a phrase from the pope’s recent encyclical – often undermines their alleged sincerity in defending the Faith.

Really Father, although you jokingly referred to yourself as the “liberal” in this conversation; the pastoral care and approach you describe is as conservative and “orthodox” as they come. :>)

I am an academic, and I doubt we have ever met. However, I am perhaps unlike some who see such matters as merely “academic”. For me, theology is an art intended to serve the Catholic people, it is never an end in itself. Dogma, doctrine, etc. act as guard rails which keep the faithful safely on the road leading to union with God. Theology is like a map to a destination, God is that destination. To become so enamored with the map, that one forgets the infinitely richer union with God towards which the map points, is a sad, sad error which too often describes the ivory-tower theologian. BUT, to pretend that we can safely arrive without the map is a fools game.

As I am sure you agree, ideas do have consequences. You wrote:

“And while it’s easy to blame much of this on Rahner’s existential ethics, or on the writings of Hans Küng or Edward Schillebeeckx or any number of “liberal” or “progressive” theologians and religious philosophers, I think that is only a small, small part of the overall cause.”

There is a sense in which I agree with this. There is a wider context or atmosphere within Western culture which champions espistemic and moral relativism across the board. Does the average Catholic, or Western citizen, recognize these influences in an academic form? Of course not. But almost every mover or shaker who eventually helps form the dominant popular mindset, filters through the modern university system where precisely these ideas shape and form the mind. Such persons (in whatever field they occupy) almost always come out the other end of the educational process with an “enlightened” attitude which embraces relativism in ethics (if not in epistemology) and decry any person or institution who dares claim to speak THE truth. This, I believe, is what Benedict XVI means by the term “dictatorship of relativism”. The homely and parochial outlook of their less enlightened Christian parents (if they even grew up with such) is looked at as an archaic throwback. The religious tradition of their past just hasn’t come to grips with modernity – that’s the modern motif – and its not simply borne out of disgust for moral failing among the clergy; it is born out of a wide set of cultural and philosophical factors which have developed over several hundred years.

Such was the wider intellectual context and climate in which Rahner, Kung, et al found themselves doing theology. The reason their innovative elevation of the role of conscience is such a problem, is because it is the Catholic incarnation of this wider cultural shift. Their views represent a sophisticated theological baptism of cultural subjectivism within a Catholic environment. Does the average Catholic know who Rahner or Kung is, or what “existential ethics” is? Of course not. BUT, a whole generation of priests, nuns and catechists DO; and they have either intentionally or unintentionally been passing on a secular and non-Catholic notion of conscience, as if it were sanctioned by the Church - which is supposed to be “a light to the Gentiles”.

The faithful are always faced with the challenges of non-Christian culture (in our times modernity). But the Church and her pastors are to assist them in rightly discerning what is spiritually dangerous in the ideas current in the world around them (and also what is laudable – much about “modernity” is quit wonderful). However, in this case, a very destructive idea was imported into the Church, as if it were sanctioned, so that many of the faithful were faced with confusion.

So Father, given your description of your pastoral approach, I can only say that I still think you hold a view whose implications you have perhaps not fully acknowledged – even though you, yourself, have ever avoided allowing those implications to work themselves out in your pastoral care. However, I think your own “trip down memory lane” shows that the Rahnerian view of conscience does – logically – license the problem results I suggest. You wrote:

“Sadly, in more situations than I would like, I’ve been thanked for my time and concern and then informed that . . . 2.)They will go talk to Father [fill in the blank here] who understands better than I do [which ITSM really means,some Priest told the person that what he/she is doing or going to do is not “really a sin” or maybe not a “grave” sin regardless of what The Church objectively teaches and what ** I ** objectively KNOW to be a Mortal Sin according to the teachings of The Church]”

I’ll be willing to bet that if you and I could talk to “Father [fill in the blank]” and ask him for an ethical of Catholic defense of his subversion of your pastoral instruction, he will say something almost exactly like the following:

“it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality (official Church teaching) once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way.”

I am afraid that is the reality. You may not follow the implications of this view, yourself; but a great many of your brothers in the priesthood take your position to entail exactly what you seem to think it does not. Fudging on “objective morality” or the authority of the Church in a culture where we are faced with a broad spectrum “crisis of truth” weakens the Gospel of Christ, because it causes those within the Church, to lose their footing – and we NEED to keep our footing if we are to be effective Catholics during our time.

Continued . . . .

Posted by Father George Robert on Monday, Dec 27, 2010 2:54 AM (EST):

@Carolyn Hyppolite and AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias: Thank you Carolyn and the person who posts as “Analysis…” for your comments. As a priest in a religious community I do understand the Church hierarchy. I live within the structure every day of my religious life. I also understand, in the light of events which came to light during the Papacy of John Paul II and His Holiness’ current Papacy, both pope’s intent to “clean house” so to speak.

It’s easy to blame much of the current situation on predominant positions in moral theology and other theological disciplines that were floated at seminaries and in university classrooms after Vatican II. To some extent, Carl is correct in his very articulate challenge to positions that he correctly sees flowing from ideas originally developed by Karl Rahner and some of the other “giants” in theology when I was originally in seminary and later graduate school.

On the other hand, the reactions of the John Paul II and currently His Holiness—and some of our Bishops—strike me as somewhat knee jerk reactions to a crisis that is much more complex. Now, please understand me here, I do not believe that either John Paul II, during his reign, or Pope Benedict want to react rashly, harshly or with what many see as “knee jerk” reactions. This would NOT fit the character of either Pontiff or those who closely advise them. So, I want to be clear—very clear—that this is not the intent.

Their intent, as it should be from their perspective, is to preserve an faith that is orthodox in faith and correct in practice, to correct errors that they understand put the very souls of The Faithful at risk.

The problem is that The Church, an ancient institution, is no longer able to speak with authority to many in the modern world and, as seen by many, this honest attempt is seen as heavy-handed and legalistic. That’s not to say that His Holiness or John Paul before him are wrong, just that it may be very ineffective in general. Not because of THEM or the Church, but because it (The Church) and organized religion in general is just not relevant to many people and holds neither the political or spiritual influence that it did in pre-scientific, more superstitious earlier centuries.

A Priest or a one a protestant minister can say to a sinning member of the flock, “You continue this without repenting and you’re in danger of going to hell,” and the Priest or minister very easily could receive a sincere but flip sounding, “I don’t believe in hell,” or, as one 24 year old told a member of my community, “I’d rather laugh in hell with the sinners than cry with the saints.” (I assume this is a reference to the late 70s, early 80s song by Billy Joel, but what do I know?)

The Church, and those of us who are Her preachers and teachers, are in a difficult place. For the sake of people’s eternal souls, we dare not water down moral teachings just to be more palatable. We do that, we probably would not “fill the pew” and if we did, what good does it do a person to sit in Mass or a religion class, hear false doctrine that is more palatable and still go to hell?

On the other hand, The Church has a number of practices and non-essential traditions which have been elevated to the level of Sacred Tradition or confused by many people as Sacred Tradition when really some of these are traditions, but not Sacred Traditions.

I truly think that by reassessing some of these and adapting those which are adiphoria (not essential for salvation) would allow The Church to reach more people in this current society while strengthening public respect for, and understanding, of the Magisterium.

Sacred Traditions, of course, are those teachings of the Church which, while these may not be explicitly found in Scripture, should be equated with Scripture in authority.

I continue to pray for all involved in the scandal at St. Joseph’s.

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 10:39 PM (EST):

As I stated above, we do not have the NCBC report which Dr. L. mentioned in her report. However, I did find a recent statement by them here:

http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

Posted by Elaine on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 8:34 PM (EST):

it seems some folks have difficulty thinking the Bishop is “pulling rank”. He has the right to do this as he is a representative of Chirst and designated by Chirst to lead his flock in the way Christ would teach. After all Christ “pulled rank” many times and his designated apostle also has the right to do so. He needs make no excuses for Church teaching.

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 6:32 PM (EST):

@Carolyn writes: “One of the things that really struck me about Bishop’s Olmsted repeated call for the acknowledgememt of his authority. I thought those statements stood in strak contrast to the hospital very well-thought out defense of their position. The bishops needs to stop relying on “I am the bishop” and need to start reaching out and engaging the culture.”

The Bishop’s authority IS the crux of this issue, which is why, I believe, he stressed it so often. While the hospital did present a “well-thought out defense of their position,” so did the Bishop, with regard to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, ““The Distinction Between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures,” as well as The National Catholic Bioethics Center Analysis—June 11, 2010. Even the CMA (Catholic Medical Association) has come out in favor of the Bishop. So, I don’t think it’s a case of “well, they have the better argument, so the Bishop is simply pulling rank.” I think he has cogent arguments, omedically, ethically, and theologicaly, and so, in these situations, the only resolution lies in the one who ultimately has the authority to decide if Catholic principles are being adhered to, or violated.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the NCBC’s analysis (which I would love to read), but we have to believe that the Bishop has valid concerns. The fact is, the bottom line is ALWAYS one of authority - from the earliest years of the Church, who has the ultimate authority in matters of dispute? Throughout history, those who rejected this authority were no longer Catholic. It’s a novel idea that one can still be “Catholic” and yet reject the Church’s binding authority.

The whole thing can be boiled down to this: Some ethicists, theologians, and medical doctors agree with the hospital, and some agree with the Bishop. So, does the Bishop, who has the ultimate authority, simply agree to disagree? He says no, he is exercising his duty to make a definitive determination.

I’m not a theologian, but I have a very strong background, many years’ experience, and several degrees in medical technology and related fields. My own reading of M. Therese Lysaught’s analysis leaves me very concerned that such an analysis, if accepted, sets a very dangerous precedent. She argues that the intervention was neither a direct abortion, NOR one which can be considered falling under the principle of double effect.

In short, she seems to be presenting a “third” category - a definite “termination of pregnancy” - but without “intent” to kill the fetus.

As such, can not EVERY “intervention” done to “save the life of the mother” fall into this “third” category? “We didn’t ‘intend’ to kill the fetus, we only intended to terminate the pregnancy”. Ultimately, one could use this defense to “justify” abortions even to protect the “health” of the mother - in effect, MOST abortions. “We didn’t intend to kill the fetus, we only intended to terminate a pregnancy which was causing the mother much stress and anxiety.”

I have many other problems with her analysis, but will state just one. The NCBC’s analysis (which we don’t have access to, but which was quoted, in part, in Dr. L’s analysis), stated: “The pregnancy was seen as a pathology. However, there was no evidence of any pathology of the reproductive organs, nor of the fetus, its placenta or its membranes.”

To this, Dr. L responds: “Here the NCBC draws too stark a distinction between particular organs and the entire physiological system of which they are a part. I do not mean here to invoke the principle of totality; rather, this is simply a biological fact.” Yet, later, she does virtually the same thing – on a smaller scale - which she complains the NCBC has done – she draws a very sharp distinction between the fetus (the particular organ), and the “pregnancy” (the larger physiological system). In fact, her entire analysis was peppered with attempts to highlight this distinction, finally culminating in her statement that: “Given the clinical facts of the situation, the phrase “termination of pregnancy” is an accurate medical description of what the intervention was trying to achieve (to terminate the burden of the
pregnancy not to kill the child).”

Virtually any medical textbook, dictionary, etc, defines pregnancy as “The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.” Dr. L. argues that, even if the fetus dies, the “pregnancy” can continue, for weeks, or even months. This is a VERY NOVEL thing to state. If fact, if the fetus dies, that is a miscarriage (or, spontaneous abortion), and the PREGNANCY ends with the death of the fetus. Thus, miscarriage is commonly defined as: “Any pregnancy that ends spontaneously before the fetus can survive.”

For years, most medical personnel were taught that pregnancy began at fertilization. Since the advent of the Pill, in around 1965, the American College of OB and GYN re-defined pregnancy as beginning at implantation, leaving a 7-10 day window between fertilization and the “beginning of pregnancy” that was a novel distinction. Many have argued, cogently, that the “purpose” behind this change in definition of the beginning of pregnancy was to minimize the abortifacient potential of the Pill. If it prevented implantation, then it prevented pregnancy, and since abortion is the early termination of pregnancy, it could “legitimately” be argued that no termination of pregnancy took place, since on pregnancy took place.

With all due respect to Dr. L., (and I do NOT claim that she is intending to do this), I have serious concerns that, once again, the very definition of “pregnancy” is being changed, in a novel way, and, if accepted, can justify virtually any abortion. I don’t doubt the Bishop sees this, too.

Seven years of trying to reach out to St. Joseph demonstrates Bishop Olmsted’s reasonable patience and understanding. Bishop Olmsted has done nothing wrong in asserting his authority. It is the authority that has been bestowed to him by the Church and anybody who is well-informed regarding their Catholic faith would not be trying to defend an indefensible act using faulty moral reasoning that has been clearly outed in the radio interview given by Bishop Olmsted and his staff. The hospital is acting in their self-interest and it’s pretty clear by their lack of transparency and the disingenuous explanations they’ve given Bishop Olmsted. To use present undercurrents of the lack of religious convictions in present day society is in no way relevant to the current issue regarding St. Joseph and if anything is a straw man’s arguments. We are dealing here with certain realities and not just cultural and philosophical discussions regarding why people have chosen to turn to other directions. Although I understand the need to reach out to folks in order to bring them closer to Christ, you don’t do this by justifying what is wrong. It’s that plain and simple and I don’t expect American or World society to be embracing Bishop Olmsted’s position because this is not what the world wants to hear. The Church is NOT a democracy. There is structure and hierarchy in place specifically to combat the moral relativism that has swept modern day society. I appreciate Fr. George’s commentary since I never felt it was his intent to oppose church teaching although Carl made arguments that were extremely clear that challenged Fr. George’s comments because it was IMPORTANT to make sure there was no misunderstanding regarding the Church’s position. I understand clearly the need for a merciful and pastoral attitude, but it must be done solely AFTER the facts are known, which is something that St. Joseph has artfully and politically manipulated in order to gain public sympathy.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 4:08 PM (EST):

Thank you for this post, Father George.

Many in the Church seem to think that the current problem in the Church is that we are not declaring enough people, or institution, “not Catholic.” The problem is the oppoosite.

One of the things that really struck me about Bishop’s Olmsted repeated call for the acknowledgememt of his authority. I thought those statements stood in strak contrast to the hospital very well-thought out defense of their position. The bishops needs to stop relying on “I am the bishop” and need to start reaching out and engaging the culture.

This trend started in the 1990s and continues through today. It includes people in both Generation X and Y.

While these young “nones” may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

“Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church,” Putnam said. “They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues.”

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of “intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views,” and therefore stopped going to church.

This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come.

“That is the future of America,” he says. “Their views and their habits religiously are going to persist and have a huge effect on the future.”

Today, after Mass, a early 20 something young man who I baptized when I was a young priest, said to me that when @ college, he does not attend Church and was only there because he is visiting his parents. (He goes to university in Arizona). He said that although he liked me personally, he and his friends were “laughing” at the situation at St. Joseph’s and really didn’t care or respect anything that ANY Bishop has to say because “they’re old men, who aren’t supposed to have sex and either molest kids or let other priests molest kids” and can’t marry but think they can set rules about issues, like marriage, birth control, about which most of us priests have no personal first hand experience.
He also commented that he had little respect for The Pope for the same reasons. This young man, who attended public schools, really doesn’t care about subjective conscience versus objective moral teaching, or about Ethical Directives from The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or most of the issues we’re talking about here, he’s lost respect because those of us in The Church haven’t “done that or been there”.

As long as we continue to be an “exclusive men’s club”, or are perceived as such, we will have little authority in many people’s lives. And we can talk about or teach about Objective Moral Teaching until we’re blue in the face, it will do nothing—because, on a practical level, authority has to be earned and has to be recognized by those who are governed regardless of what The Church may proclaim.

Posted by Father Robert George on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 6:11 AM (EST):

** Getting Back on Track**

As a pastoral matter, I want to apologize to everyone for my lengthy responses to Carl. Because this blog does not seem to allow the author of a comment to edit or remove a comment once posted, I cannot shorten or rewrite my last posts.

My simple comment to Anne Rice, the writer, was what started this whole sub-discussion, but it does demonstrate how problems like that which developed between Bishop Olmsted and the relevant staff and administrators at St. Joseph’s (and their corporate parent, Catholic Heathcare West) and escalated.

Some in St. Joseph’s administration probably sincerely believe that they, and their parent corporation, are being truly faithful to Roman Catholic teaching, are continuing their Catholic mission and are being unfairly maligned by Bishop Olmsted, that he is being heavy handed and pushing his personal agenda—which, even if shared by His Holiness and others in the current Curia—does not represent “authentic” and broader Catholicism.

On the other hand, Bishop Olmsted, it’s clear, along with many of us here, including **liberal** me <grin> believe that he (Bishop Olmsted) is protecting the flock from a hospital that, in his view, wantonly and repeatedly, violates numerous moral tenants of the Catholic Church. (My own view changed since my original postings here when I discovered that the situation @ St. Joseph’s did not involve just this one horrific incident, but a documented history of questionable procedures and disregard for the Teachings of The Church.)

It is most certainly true that the Church is in crisis. And while it’s easy to blame much of this on Rahner’s existential ethics, or on the writings of Hans Küng or Edward Schillebeeckx or any number of “liberal” or “progressive” theologians and religious philosophers, I think that is only a small, small part of the overall cause.

Trends in The Unted States and in Europe show that less and less of the population finds organized Christian religion important in their daily lives and that less of the populationn (Catholic or otherwise)

Posted by Father Robert George on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 4:44 AM (EST):

To Everyone - Sorry about the “trip down memory lane”, but it does underscore some of the concerns that JPII addressed in Veritatis Splendor and perhaps some of the current confusion which directly impacts CHW.

None of the professors—whether Priests, lay men or lay women—who educated me in Catholic seminary and in university classrooms, who I respect and were most influential in my appreciation of Baum, Rahner, Congar, Schillebeeckx, Küng, Chenu and the rest—ever encouraged any of us to break Objective Church Teaching, which most of them fully supported (or at least fully enough that I do not remember any of them purposing that The Teaching of The Church on moral issues was wrong and should be disobeyed by people of conscience). I only remember ONE professor, who was my mentor, complaining that sometimes the Church treated certain human traditions as if these were Sacred Traditions and he found that to be a problem. His example of a human tradition that was being taught as a Sacred Tradition is the practice of required celibacy for priests in Western Rite Catholicism, which has its origins in property and inheritance issues rather than mystical revelation, as much as The Church might produce official statements to declare it otherwise.

He believed that celibacy was a special chrism that some men called to Priesthood had, but that it was not essential to the Priesthood. In fact, although he was a Western Rite Catholic and vowed religious, he also was dual-ritual, approved to celebrate Mass and other sacraments in one of the Eastern Rite Catholic traditions (Byzantine-Catholic, I think). As a Western Rite Catholic, he was chaste like the rest of us, to my knowledge, but he pointed out in class, that Eastern Rite Catholic priests are able to get married and raise children, yet are in full communion with, and accept the authority of the See of Rome.

Posted by Father Robert George on Sunday, Dec 26, 2010 3:38 AM (EST):

Hello Carl, David and Everyone:

I hope that each of you and those who are special in your lives had a wonderful and blessed Christmas.

@ David:
I did not expect to find a former student, especially one who is not Roman Catholic, participating here in a discussion area hosted by a conservative Roman Catholic publication. I remember you and I’m not sure how you discovered I was posting here, but welcome.

I wish to be absolutely clear to you that I do not feel that Carl is attacking my character in any way. Although I do not know him, to my knowledge, offline, I believe that, as he stated to you and in previous posts, it’s extremely difficult for him to challenge a priest because of the orthodox Catholic understanding of our ordination. I respect that and I admire his willingness to dialog even though his piety may find it a spiritual challenge to confront what he believes are unintentional errors on my part. I also believe that his motives are pure and that his apparent love for Christ and Christ’s Church is real.

While it is easy for many Protestants to challenge their pastors and it is certainly easy for those laypeople who identify with or as “dissenters” to criticize or publicly chastise a priest in Catholicism, a conservative, orthodox Catholic struggles with this because even if he or she does not like a particular cleric, he or she understands the nature of Ordination as understood by Catholics and respects the Office if not the particular man.

To my knowledge I do not know Carl offline, but he writes like an academic. Whether or not he is an academic, he does understand the nature of theological / moral discourse. This occurs all the time, although traditionally in Faculty meetings and academic publications. In recent times, with the advent of the Internet and blogs, it’s beginning to take place in public and private forums and email discussion groups.

No worries. It is through such dialog that individuals grow and often develop new insights. So, while you may have felt the need to defend me against a perceived attack on my character or my beliefs, there was no need.

I further trust that both Carl and I will continue to be men of character for whom the Faith is extremely important and that neither of us are participating here just to “win” a debate. Far from being appropriate to the original topic of this blog, the issues which Carl and I are discussing directly bear on the issues at hand in the specific situations at Saint Joseph’s which caused Bishop Olmsted to take the unusal and extraordinary step of revoking St. Joseph’s status as a Catholic hospital.

@ Carl,

Thank you for your responses to my postings as well as for your response to David. I’d like to address several points and then relate these to the specific, tragic situation we saw unfold at St. Joseph’s and some unfortunate consequences for The Church as a whole.

Several posts back, you posited a pastoral situation to me. For those following along, I quote you here:

You: Imagine that a parishioner informs you that he/she is considering engaging in an act which you know to be GRAVELY contrary to God’s objective moral law as explicated by Christ through the Church. You patiently explain and inform your parishioner concerning the objective morality of the deed and the official teaching of the Church. After clearly understanding your explanation, the parishioner; nonetheless, informs you that his/her considered evaluation of the concrete situation is such that he/she must go ahead and act contrary to God’s objective moral law as explicated by Christ through the Church. As one responsible for the care of her soul, how must you respond to this last insistence upon rejection of official Church teaching?

My response: Like all Priests, I have faced this situation more times than I would like. In such real situations, I listen and then respond with as much empathy as I can depending on what the particular GRAVE sin happens to be. I’m assuming, for sake of discussion, we’re talking about a MORTAL SIN. Even though I express empathy to the best of my ability in a given situation and say something like, “I understand your feelings” or “I hear your concerns.” But, I also explain to him/her that by continuing their chosen course of action, contrary to Christ’s teaching and the Teaching of our Church he or she is putting his/her relationship with God at risk, risking his/her salvation at risk, not because God condemns him/her but because he or she effectively, by his/her own free choice is continuing to act deliberately against God and that has consequences. If the GRAVE SIN has “social consequences”, i.e. is not “private and internal” but involves human relationships or societal interaction, these consequences may not only affect the person’s salvation/soul, but also have human, relational or legal consequences. If the discussion is taking place in “Confession”, I inform the person that I cannot, under such circumstances, grant absolution since they are not repentant (if the sin is already committed and on-going) or because I cannot grant absolution for a sinful act, mortal or otherwise, that a person has not yet committed, but fully intends to commit.

Sadly, in more situations than I would like, I’ve been thanked for my time and concern and then informed that 1.) they will STILL do whatever it is they are going to do. 2.)They will go talk to Father [fill in the blank here] who understands better than I do [which ITSM really means,some Priest told the person that what he/she is doing or going to do is not “really a sin” or maybe not a “grave” sin regardless of what The Church objectively teaches and what ** I ** objectively KNOW to be a Mortal Sin according to the teachings of The Church] 3.) The person thanks me for my concern and tells me, often in a way that is clear he or she is being insincere and polite, that he or she will reflect on what I have said before actually committing the act which is the sin in question.

The other common alternative response that I’ve encountered in such situations is that the person with whom I’m speaking launches out with a very crude tirade about 1.) Jesus Christ; 2.) The Roman Catholic Church—usually labeled as sexist, dictatorial, or whatever; 3.) me personally or 4.) God (without mentioning Jesus Christ directly) or any combination of the above. Usually such rants end in the person SCREAMING at me about this is why they don’t believe in such a God or why they don’t go to Church, etc.

With some special people, with whom I’ve developed a personal bond and trust, I’ve been able to actually see a change of heart and a willingness not to continue down what is clearly a moral (and sometimes social or legal) path of destruction.

From a pastoral perspective and as a trained clinical social worker and psychotherapist, I think there are a couple reasons for these more common, and to me very sad, responses. In the scenario that Carl presented, the person and I have already had at least one (or more) discussions about the person’s choice so that he or she already knows that whatever Church teaching he or she is going to disregard is one in which his/her spiritual life, perhaps salvation, is at risk (because that would have been part of the initial discussion about WHY the Church has a particular OBJECTIVE TEACHING prohibiting whatever the sin is in the first place). In a sense, if nothing I’ve discussed with such an individual so far dissuaded him or her from deciding to act, it’s gone far enough that whatever he or she is planning to disregard, he/she probably will. My hope at that point, my prayer, is that the person reflects on our discussion before actually doing the sin or continuing in the sin and possibly at the last minute changes his/her mind.

Many of those Priests who were involved in teaching Moral Theology both in seminary and in my academic studies after seminary would have advocated for the approach that so concerns you, Carl: to offer such a person the caveat, that despite their intention to engage in an objectively mortal sin; so long as they have really subjectively considered their situation in the light of Church teaching, their act may not entail any spiritual danger at all. In fact, if they really, really, believe “in conscience” that they most go ahead and ignore Church teaching and perform this otherwise mortal sin; they not only can, but MUST, do so - and both the Church, and ostensibly God, will not hold them culpable for so doing .

Years ago, first moral theology professor, in fact went further, If they follow objective Church teaching even though their conscience tells them that the objective church teaching is wrong, then they are GUILTY of sin by following Church teaching simply because it is church teaching. He also encouraged those of us under simple vows to follow our conscience on moral issues, REGARDLESS OF CHURCH TEACHING or the orders of our Religious Superiors—which in fact amounted to encouraging us to violate our vows of obedience and, for some people, chastity.

I remember remarking to a classmate this this fellow was a complete idiot and several of us, from different communities, reported this fellow to our superiors. He advocated, as a matter of conscience, a number of positions that not only were contrary to Church teaching but which would have also be anathema to many of our Protestant brothers and sisters as well. Somehow, I managed to earn a “B” in his class, although he continuously chided me for being too conservative[!]

Thankfully the professor later left the seminary, but I discovered that he ended up with a tenured position at a major Catholic university where he eventually was barred from teaching undergraduate students or even in the Master of Arts program, but was moved to a position in biomedical ethics.

Perhaps this contributes to the confusion regarding situations like that at Saint Joseph’s.

Posted by Thomas Nelson on Saturday, Dec 25, 2010 2:26 PM (EST):

Thank you Bishop

The fifth commandment “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” says THE LORD”

Tom

Posted by Carl on Saturday, Dec 25, 2010 1:52 PM (EST):

David,

Also, as to your comment:

“For me who comes from the “Sola Scriptura Sola Gratia” (Scripture Alone, Grace Alone) tradition, this whole thing about Directives and a hospital losing it’s Catholic status and you and Father G disagreeing, it’s all stupid. . . . I am so glad we don’t deal with all this.”

Perhaps it is worth considering that the reason you don’t “deal with this stuff” is because you have unreflexivly become so used to division (there are I believe over 10,000 Protestant sects all claiming to rest their case on sola scriptura), that your alleged freedom from internal strife in whatever small corner of Protestantism you reside has only been achieved by separating yourself from all those with whom you disagree - in other words, by not “dealing with this stuff”.

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by Carl on Saturday, Dec 25, 2010 1:43 PM (EST):

meant to say: “little else in the world I enjoy LESS than finding myself in disagreement with a Catholic priest”

wow - glad I caught THAT!

Posted by Carl on Saturday, Dec 25, 2010 1:41 PM (EST):

Dear David,

I appreciate your obvious love for Fr. George. However it is difficult for me to determine from your remarks exactly what it is you are “calling me on”. Are you concerned that I have misrepresented his position or maligned his character? Or are you arguing in favor of his position on conscience over against the critique I have offered?

As to the former, I can say that there is little else in the world I enjoy than finding myself in profound disagreement with a Catholic priest over a substrata issue of the Catholic faith – even when that disagreement proceeds along charitable lines. I believe it may have been St. Francis who once said that if we encounter a priest and an angel walking together along the path, we ought to bow to the priest first and the angel second, because the priest possesses a conformity of soul and being with Christ that neither the laity or the angels enjoy. That disposition, I pray, represents attitude with which I approach this discussion with Fr. George.

For that very reason, I have bounded my discussion by the following rules

1.Never question or discuss his motives – which I assume to be entirely pure

3. I have previously offered an open invitation to Fr. George to correct me on any point whatsoever in which he believes I have not properly represented his position. This is a necessary step between two parties in any discussion.

Further, in my last response to his POSITION (as distinct from his person or motives etc) I specifically chose a course of argument centered around the actual words of his central proposition which he rightly recognizes as the point of dispute. Further, I responded to the very source material he has thus far put forward in support of his view, rather than ignore his responses by presenting a battery of counter-sources.

If Fr. Robert George believes I have maligned his person, motives, or good faith statements concerning his intentions and wishes for God’s people, he has only to say the word and he will promptly receive my apology and a request for prayer.

However, I hope you will agree that it is possible to disagree with the CONTENT a of person’s position, as well as flesh out the implications of the same, without impugning upon that person’s honor or integrity. I have been the beneficiary of just that sort of charitable disagreement in the past – often with the result that my own perspective gained a much needed adjustment.

Nor have I intended to demonize Karl Rahner or any other theologian even those widely considered as “dissenters”). I deeply disagree with Rahner on one central and crucial element of his Moral Theology (which admittedly rests upon some deeper disagreements regarding epistemology and the “hermeneutic of dis-continuity); BUT, I agree with Fr. George, that Rahner is a brilliant theologian with a GREAT DEAL to teach us. Again to disagree with a point of Rahner’s theology is not to disparage his motives or the rest of his work. Do I think he is “anointed” or possibly the greatest theologian who has ever lived. No, I do not. If I had to make a pitch for the theological hall of fame, I would argue that St. Thomas, though 800 years removed, has forgotten more about theology than many modern scholars and theologians have learned. Still, I read modern voices with pleasure – including men like Kung whose license to teach as “Catholic” theologian was revoked - because much that he says is insightful AND because the WAY that he says it, is crucial when trying to learn best how to communicate the Faith to a modern audience.

Thus, when you refer to passages from Fr. George’s lecture notes showing that he speaks forcefully against certain types of dissent, I accept those affirmations as utterly true and representative of his thinking. He has said as much already. However, that does not entail that the actual position he holds regarding the authority of conscience is not a central cause of some of the very real-world problems within the Church which he laments.

As to all the examples concerning saints and schismatics who spoke out against moral abuse, or else alleged contradictions regarding Dogmatic Church teaching surrounding Galileo and Darwin – all of that is part and parcel of the “hermeneutic of dis-continuity” which is often very dear to theologians who pursue a Rahnerian interpretation of the “primacy of conscience” because they see it as providing the foil which one needs to weaken Magisterial claims prior to advancing the ultimate prerogatives of the subjective conscience against “official Church teaching”. Problem is, none of those examples do the work that the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” crowd wish. Taken case by case and as a whole, the “hermeneutic of CONtinuity” remains as powerful as ever it was.

I have no idea really, what a discussion concerning Sola Scriptura or Protestant epistemology has to do with any of this. I can say that I embraced various forms of Protestantism (mostly Reformed) for thirty years, prior to losing my faith to secular agnosticism. I own all of Martin Luther’s sermons and have been highly immersed in Calvinism, including its philosophical dimensions in persons such as Alvin Plantinga. I continue to cherish the rich spiritual and theological heritage I received from the stream of the Reformation thought and theology as well as the practical example of devotion and integrity gained from those with whom I held fellowship – even though I think the Reformation was fundamentally mistaken in its enshrinement of private judgment.

If you (or your professorial relation) would like to engage in charitable dialogue (as opposed to mere bomb throwing or table pounding), I cordially invite you to join discussion over at www.calledtocommunion.com where many Catholic converts from Reformed Protestantism discuss the central points of divide between Protestants and Catholics in a charitable but rigorous way. I often contribute there myself.

God’s richest blessings on you and yours.

Pax et Bonum,

Carl

Posted by David on Saturday, Dec 25, 2010 12:08 AM (EST):

Carl, dude, you seriously misjudge Father G and I’m calling you on it. The Catholic Church has taught things that were “official” throughout history and then later had to be changed—such as its condemnaton of Galleo and Darwyn and modern astronomy (at one point). Martin Luther, perhaps the major founder of The Reformation, tried for a long time to get the higher Church officials to correct what everybody now knows were abuses. Like any good Catholic theologian, Luther expected the Pope to do something to correct the stuff that was going on, but the Pope was up to his neck in it.

By the way, my father is a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor and has taught in the Missouri Synod university system so if you want to argue Reformation theology or anything of that nature like you try to do with Father G, I’ll just ask him to get on here.

Anyway, I had Father G in an undergraduate class where the Catholic view of exactly the stuff you’re arging about with Father G was the topic.

Father G was VERY clear that Roman Catholic official teaching (magisterium) is like Scripture… something I find stupid, but hey, it’s your church… and that people like Rahner were really important in writing Vatican II and helping the chuch address its eternal message in a new way, new world. My note says—not new message, just a better understanding.

He talked about how after tht is Rahner priest wrote his ideas about ethics (and how this all related to a FALSE idea thatthe conscience reigns supreme. I’m looking @ my notes now. Father G says this is a FALSE idea. Sometimes, like Luther when the Church was corrupt or St. Francis came alone (and Fransiscans were repressed as were Jesuits at one point), a person needs to challenge from conscience… but that for everyday Catholics…. Chuch Teaching / Sacred Tradition (with a capital T versus tradition with a small T) and The Scriptures are the norms on which Catholics are to base your lives. He also says as I have in my notes: that the Magisterium, offical Chruch Teaching, for Catholics is the authoritive // what you can trust // intepeter of Scripture, life and morals…because God gives the ppl the Sciptures through the Catholic Church. And, my notes say, when u stray from that, even if you think you’re right, you run the risk of committing grave sin ... sin being that which separates us or at least harms or relationship from God, whether its in what we think, do, or don’t do when we should.

Some ppl in class challenged Father G on that about birth control, glbt issues and other stuff and he said that the only way as a Catholic a person could KNOW for sure what was right was to ask what does the church teach?

Someone asked about confessing something that they weren’t sorry for, like screwing their girl firend or whatever, so they could go to mass and take communion, be whitewashed. Father G. and I got this in my notes said that a person should not confess what he isn’t sorry for because that would be a li \e and not true repentence and in the case of my classmate would just compound the sin he was already doing by having premarital sex and continued unrepentent sin puts his soul in danger.

For me who comes from the “Sola Scriptura Sola Gratia” (Scripture Alone, Grace Alone) tradition, this whole thing about Directives and a hospital losing it’s Catholic status and you and Father G disagreeing, it’s all stupid. Because like you, he defends your church and he was the one who objected to the other priests who were supporting the GLBT ppl, etc. based on their claikms that the chuch was wrong.

I am so glad we don’t deal with all this.

Merry Christmas, you who loves to argue over nothin

Posted by Ed Olearczyk on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 8:54 PM (EST):

Starve St. Joseph’s of donations and patients patronage. Go somehwere else until they wake up. The nun should be kicked out of her order or her order be cut from the Church. Wolves in sheeps clothing I say. What a disgrace to force the Bishops hand like that.

Posted by Gordon Zaft on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 6:44 PM (EST):

Thank you Bishop Olmsted. What a sad day for our diocese and for Catholic health care. CHW, repent!

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 6:27 PM (EST):

Carl,

Yes, there is no doubt that this error was disseminated with the best of intentions. It’s like the man who, in charity, gives a drink of well water to a dying thirsty man, and the poor man dies anyway. At some point, the charitable giver has to admit that the water may have quenched the dying man’s thirst, but unbeknownst to him, was contaminated with deadly V. cholorae.

Or, as some would say, one can drink a glass of orange juice, sincerely believing it IS orange juice, and end up sincerely dead if the OJ was laced with arsenic.

Praise God that these errors are finally being dealt with, in seminaries, shcools, universities, and hospitals. It’s a tragedy that it took forty years, allowing these errors to root so deeply that it will be like removing a metasasized cancer - it won’t be easy. It will be incredibly difficult, persecution will become overt, and some may even be called to die for it. We have a Faith worth dying for, but the way it has been watered down these past 40 years, who knew it?

But thanks to Bishops like Olmstead, and theologians like you, who stand up to these errors, take the time to explain them, and challenge those who still promote them, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
The pews have not filled as predicted, (by those promoting these errors). Rather, the pews have been emptied. But many are returning even as some are leaving - (too bad we only hear about those leaving, and rarely hear of the mass conversions!)

It seems to me that, throughout Church history, there always has been a “wandering in the desert” for about a generation after a Church Council was held, so I suppose we are no different. We’ve had to wrestle with the “spirit” of Vatican II. Now, may the Spirit of Vatican II lead us on the right path!

God Bless you, Carl!

Posted by Carl on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 5:23 PM (EST):

Oh and I should add, Thanks be to God, that problem in Moral Theology is being corrected in seminaries all over the country.

Pax Christi

Posted by Carl on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 5:13 PM (EST):

Thank you TheresaEE

I am sure that Fr. George means well - he is just wrong on this issue as were so many priests trained in seminary environments where such ideas held sway. I think you are right about the facts on the ground. Any hope Rahner and others had that their novel approach to conscience would not lead to widespread moral indifference now has - dare I say it - an existential disproof. :>)

Pax et Bonum

Merry Christmas!

Carl

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 4:56 PM (EST):

Carl,

Once again, thank you for your very articulate and charitable response to Fr. George.

I don’t see how anyone whose eyes are wide open can deny that this erroneous interpretation of the Church’s consistent teachings on conscience has, in practice, ended in subjectivism, relativism, the denunciation of any notion of objective trugh, and the loss of any notion that the Church’s moral authority comes directly from Christ Himself.

Anyone who can’t see this reminds me of those who refuse to admit that the use and acceptance of artificial contraceptives over the last 40 years has led, not to better marriages, or “every child being wanted”, but to a higher divorce rate, exponential increase in STD’s, more unwanted children and more abortions. You just have to take your head out of the sand and look around to see it.

40 years of ACTUAL EXPERIENCE makes mince meat out of the optimistic predictions which were made by those promoting this error. It’s also made mince meat out of the lives of millions who bought into it and were led down the garden path by those counseling them to “follow their own conscience” even against the Church’s teachings.

It’s a false compassion which suggests that there are “many situations where in the name of compassion, to adhere to the official Directives simply was **wrong**!” (Fr. George). It’s a false compassion which counsels people that it’s not only “okay”, but even a “duty” to defy objective moral laws, (if our conscience tells us to), because such defiance has left us wounded and broken - individuals, families, societies, and entire cultures.

Thanks again for taking the time with this, and don’t worry about the length of your posts!

Blessed Feast of the Nativity!

Posted by Carl on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 3:28 PM (EST):

You are welcome Liseux

Pax Christi,

Merry Christmas!

Carl

Posted by liseux on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 2:19 PM (EST):

Carl, thank you for your Catholic responses. I’m printing them to learn from them.

May God bless you and all here on this Christmas Eve.

Posted by Carl on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:13 PM (EST):

Continued . . . .

Though I do not doubt the sincerity of your sentiment here, the great irony - the elephant in the room - is that the Rahnerian innovation of existential ethics which you embrace is possibly the most popular version of the “tendency toward unbridled moral relativism”. I have expressed this fact to you on multiple occasions and you have not engaged that central charge against your position. I say your position represents the epitome of moral relativism. To allow that a person might come to a fully in-formed understanding of God’s objective moral law as taught by Christ through the Church, yet licitly reject that law based on a subjective reflection on the situation; is the quintessential act of the moral relativist. It is the INTENTIONAL elevation of subjective evaluation over the objective demands of God’s law. Such an act is far, far, from licit. Indeed, it increases culpability because it reveals a wanton disregard for the truth. It seems clear to me that the very “willy-nilly”, “pick and choose” Catholicism you lament is formally and pastorally licensed by your position.

Any person who does due diligence by in-forming himself as to the nature of “objective morality” and “Official Church teaching” may “willy-nilly” appeal to his subjective “reflection on the situation” as an adequate “defense-by-appeal-to conscience” for his choice to set aside the demands of objective morality he has considered in “an informed way”. I cannot detect a single element within your position which can resist anyone who claims to have fulfilled the novel conditions erected. The caveats about informed reflection, far from staving off the tide of moral relativism within the Church, have simply taught a whole generation of Catholics that they are perfectly justified in “picking and choosing” among Catholic teachings so long as they claim to have taken the time to become informed about the nature of those teachings before making a sincere “judgment call” based on a subjective reflection upon their situation. The problem is not simply that people “just are not informed as they ought to be”. In any event, I would be fascinated to hear how you consider your position to be incompatible with moral relativism – since I see it as the birthplace of the same.

Your position also entails that one may justify use of an evil means to secure a “good” end. The notion that a person who is properly informed concerning objective morality and Church teaching, may nonetheless act against the same without culpability so long as he has reflected upon the situation; is indistinguishable from the ends-justifies-means position, since the person so acting evidently has a some goal which he thinks “good” such that he is not dissuaded from acting against the known objective order. I will just assume (though maybe I should not) that we both agree that the Church condemns the principle of “end justifies the means”. Again, I would very much like to understand how you see as opposed to end justifies means stance.

Moreover, your position (no doubt unintentionally) trades on an implicit erosion of the Catholic people’s understanding of the Divine authority with which the Catholic Magisterium speaks when exercising her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. No sense can be made of your proposition unless terms like “objective morality” and “official Church teaching” are passively disassociated from their Divine Source. Consider your proposition when worded this way:

“However, it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with Gods’ “objective” moral law (The teaching of Jesus Christ through the Church) once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Christ’s teaching through the Church in an informed way.”

I submit that hardly any cleric or theologian would seriously attempt to float this proposition when stated that way. God and Christ are the source of both the objective law and the conscience. God is, without a doubt, the One bar before which conscience must bow. Yet, all I have done is replace your generic wording with a phraseology which correctly highlights the Source of “objective morality” and “official Church Teaching”. Whether intentional or not, the cogency of your position seems to trade on an implicit failure to forthrightly defend the Divine authority of the Magisterium when she speaks in an official capacity – i.e official Church teaching. This is, of course, the common conservative complaint. I simply point out why that complaint has some teeth.

Let me close with attention to what I believe to be the pastoral implications of our discussion. Imagine that a parishioner informs you that he/she is considering engaging in an act which you know to be GRAVELY contrary to God’s objective moral law as explicated by Christ through the Church. You patiently explain and inform your parishioner concerning the objective morality of the deed and the official teaching of the Church. After clearly understanding your explanation, the parishioner; nonetheless, informs you that his/her considered evaluation of the concrete situation is such that he/she must go ahead and act contrary to God’s objective moral law as explicated by Christ through the Church. As one responsible for the care of her soul, how must you respond to this last insistence upon rejection of official Church teaching?

If my assessment of the Magisterial teaching of the Church concerning the “primacy of conscience” in relation to God’s objective law is correct; ISTM that you must gently, but firmly, inform such a person that if he/she insists on carrying out this deed, he/she will be militating against the order of reason and grace in the soul, and against the full realization of their human nature in God. Accordingly, their performance of the deed will drive the life of grace from the soul, putting them in gravest spiritual danger. You must, advise them that their own private judgment must not be raised above God’s law as explicated by the Church; but rather they should pursue conversion by con-forming their conscience to the truth which they now know.

However, if you follow your proposed formula, ISTM you must offer such a person the caveat, that despite their intention to engage in an objectively mortal sin; so long as they have really subjectively considered their situation in the light of Church teaching, their act may not entail any spiritual danger at all. In fact, if they really, really, believe “in conscience” that they most go ahead and ignore Church teaching and perform this otherwise mortal sin; they not only can, but MUST, do so - and both the Church, and ostensibly God, will not hold them culpable for so doing.

I hope we can agree that the gravity of the spiritual and pastoral implications of these discordant approaches to the relationship between conscience and objective law is very great indeed. If Rahner is wrong, then both the souls of the flock, and perhaps more so, the souls of those who have charge of their care, are being continually placed in grave danger by his novel innovation. This issue, as you are well aware, lies at the root of the conflict between the hospital and the bishop, and any number of other hot-button topics within the Church.

I truly wish we were agreed on this fundamental issue, since it represents a fault line which runs across the core of the moral and spiritual life. Unfortunately, for all the reasons I have given, I must insist that your position remains opposed to the Magisterial teaching of the Church and poses a serious threat to both individual souls and the Church at large, even if its practitioners, such as yourself; intend no such consequence.

Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful dialogue thus far in a discussion which easily elicits strong emotions due to the core nature of the topic.

Pax et Bonum
and happy Advent!

Carl

Posted by Carl on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:11 PM (EST):

Continued . . .

[Yes, including Rahner who gets absolutely no support from this clause for part 2 of your proposition]

You wrote:

“The key to my statement and to the consistent Church teaching on primacy of conscience is that a moral person can only follow his or her conscience when it opposes objective Church teaching, once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way.”

Nothing in what you have quoted shows that the second part of your proposition:

“once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way”

represents “consistent Church teaching” – this addition is an innovation without Magisterial support. The key problem is that you are advancing a novel misappropriation of “the consistent Church teaching on primacy of conscience”. In point of fact, it is a mis-construal of the Catholic sense of the phrase “primacy of conscience”. The Catholic sense of this phrase includes the understanding that conscience is primary so far as one must always (and of necessity) follow one’s conscience according to its present state of moral formation. But the conscience is said to be “formed” in so far as it is con-formed and in-formed by the deliverances of the objective moral law. Subjective conscience, independent of objective moral law CANNOT be its own standard of formation. That is to make man the measure of all things.

Hence, the Catholic sense EXCLUDES the Rahnerian addendum that one whose conscience has ALREADY BEEN INFORMED regarding the objective moral species of an act as explicated by Christ through the teaching office of the Church, may nevertheless appeal to subjective feelings, dispositions or assessments of circumstance and consequence as a valid excuse for engaging in the act anyway. One who does so becomes MORE culpable for his actions, not less.

Karl Rahner, along with a whole host of theologians in the wake of Humanae Vitae, engaged in the exact same misappropriation and mis-construal of the Catholic notion of the “primacy of conscience”. It is, as I have said, for this very reason that John Paul II
penned Veritatis Splendor so as to set the Magisterial record straight on this matter. And in this regard, you seem unaware that the very sections of that work which you quote actually militate specifically against the Rahnerian position you advance.

In Veritatis Splendor JPII writes (and you have already quoted):

“The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience IS UNDULY ADDED the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic [Read Rahner’s subjective/existential ethics] conception of moral judgment.”

This is a direct challenge to Rahnerian existential ethics. The fact that one takes the time to become informed about Church teaching before going ahead and rejecting based on subjective reflection on the situation does not negate JPII’s charge that such a person “unduly” affirms that one’s moral judgment is true merely because it originates in the conscience. To the contrary, such a person makes a studied, considered choice regard their conscience as the origin of true judgment at the expense of an objective norm. And if that were not enough JPII goes on:

“Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now”

I am not sure if you are aware of it or not Father; but this formula which expresses the “function” of conscience as the application of UNIVERSAL knowledge of the good [read objective moral norms] in a specific situation to express a judgment about right conduct to be chosen here and now, is a definition of the role of conscience flowing from St. Thomas which SPECIFICALLY is employed to close off the attempt of Rahner and others to wedge a subjective/existentialist notion of conscience between the universal knowledge of the good and its application in the concrete situation. This line is employed by JPII with the direct intention of correcting all those who propose such wedges. I don’t know anyone who is not aware that the purpose of this clause is rebuttal. To drive the rebuttal home, in the very next line JPII goes on to say:

“Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others.”.

“a moral person can only follow his or her conscience when it opposes objective Church teaching, once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way.”

You are stating that a person can remain moral while rejecting objective Church teaching SO LONG AS he has first reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way. So a person comes face to face with God’s objective moral law as explicated by Christ through the teaching office of the Church; yet based upon his own SUBJECTIVE “reflection on the situation” in light of Church teaching, he may “in conscience” go ahead and dispense with the “light” which Church teaching provides [read God’s objective moral law] without culpability – i.e he remains “moral”. If ever there were an example of a “tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” That is it.

So when you say: “Carl, just so you know, that I happen to agree with the concerns JPII expresses.”, I am, frankly, sitting here scratching my head. Your current position is precisely one of the primary “concerns” which JPII expresses. Honestly, I cannot see how you are able to read Veritatis Splendor without either tearing it to shreds, or else re-evaluating your fundamental approach to the relationship between conscience and the objective moral order.

You wrote:

“That is, neither I nor historic Church teaching support moral relativism which results if one simply asserts primacy of conscience over the objective moral teaching of the Church willy-nilly. . . . It is precisely this tendency toward unbridled moral relativism which developed among some moral theologians in universities, graduate schools and seminaries—and sadly in some of our secondary school religion programs as well—which, I think, prompted John Paul II to issue Veritatis Splendor. Many Catholics, including priests, religious and laity, would like a “pick and choose” Catholicism . . .”

Continued . . .

Posted by Carl on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:09 PM (EST):

Dear Fr. George and others,

I apologize in advance for the length of these next few posts, but it seems unavoidable given the nature and seriousness of the subject matter.

Father, thank you for taking the time to respond to my prior posts. However, I must “in conscience” continue to object to your position. Again, I do not in the least question your sincerity when you make a strong pitch for the fact that Catholics ought not to “pick and choose” among the teachings of the Church. However, the sources you employ to highlight the “long tradition of the primacy of conscience in the Catholic Church” in no way supports your ethical position, nor that of Karl Rahner – even though there IS such a tradition. As I had previously indicated, and as every quote you provide confirms, the Church DOES teach that the conscience is primary in that one must always obey his conscience. But the binding nature of the conscience and the moral quality of acts which flow from conscience depend entirely on whether or not the subject has sought and achieved a properly formed conscience according to the deliverances of God’s objective moral law.

The subtle, but crucial error in your position, following Rahner, can be clearly seen by breaking your principal assertion into two parts. The first part reads as follows:

“However, it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality (official Church teaching) . . .”

So far so good. This statement stands in perfect conformity with the entire train of Magisterial Catholic teaching, including all of the Magisterial and non-Magisterial references you provide. Because it asserts the primacy of the conscience INDEPENDENT OF THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PERSON IS VINCIBLY OR INVINCIBLY IGNORANT OF “OBJECTIVE” MORALITY OR OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING. The trouble arises when you, following Rahner, go on to say the following:

“. . . once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way.”

This captures the essence of the well-crafted Rahnerian innovation, because it radically alters the terms of the proposition to entail that one may licitly follow one’s conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality AND (here is the deforming addition) EVEN WHEN ONE EXPLICITLY ACKOWLEDGES THAT THEY ARE NOT INVINCIBLY IGNORANT OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY.

I shall simply re-list your Magisterial and non-magisterial quotations with comment related to the two parts of your proposition:

“He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
[compatible with regard to part 1, silent regarding part 2]
“It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one’s conscience.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

[compatible with part 1, silent regarding part 2, however, St. Thomas, elsewhere explicitly denies that the ends may ever justify the means, and also affirms that an evil act performed with full knowledge of the evil of its moral species is illicit, and renders the agent culpable to the extent that he is not affected by passions – a position which directly contradicts part 2 of your proposition as well as the existential ethic of Karl Rahner]

[compatible with part 1, ambiguous as to part 2 since the statement refers to the pope and not the pope’s magisterial teaching. From any number of other references it can be shown that Newman utterly rejects the notion that one can appeal to conscience to justify rejection of a KNOWN, definitive papal teaching or other deliverance of the objective law. It was Newman who said “conscience has rights because it first has duties”. Once the conscience has been properly formed and KNOWS the objective morality of a deed, Newman becomes the great defender of the dictum: “Drink to God’s law first, and the subjective deliverances of conscience afterwards”]

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.”
- Pope John Paul II in his book, Crossing The Threshold of Hope

[again, to the extent that Newman places conscience above authority, he intends the notion that one must NOT reject the “objective” moral law even if human authority instructs otherwise. Nothing in this statement remotely proffers the position that one can appeal to conscience to set aside known objective morality which is predicated on the authority of God, not human beings.]

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.” - Human Life in Our Day, A Statement Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 15, 1968)

[Of course this refers to the fact that coercion is immoral. In does not support or even speak to part 2 of your proposition in any way]

“We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . . Some situations oblige one to obey God and one’s own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one’s own conscience.” - Cardinal Walter Kasper (President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; President from 2001-2010); author of the great text, Jesus: The Christ.

[This is simply a statement which AFFIRMS that one must follow the objective moral law, even (perhaps especially) when Church leaders fail to follow the law of Christ. As to the reference to excommunication; perhaps a bishop commands a person to act against what they THINK is the objective moral law. In such case one must (as the Church teaches and I have affirmed) obey conscience rather than the prelate. BUT, notice that this situation does NOT entail that the subject KNOWS an act to be against the objective moral law and THEN appeals to conscience to act anyway. Just the opposite. It is fidelity to the objective moral law as one’s formation presently KNOWS it, that might give rise to the situation in question. NOT disregard for what one has come to know as objective moral law as your formulae calls for.]

and as a final example, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” - Catechism of The Catholic Church (#1800]

[But you apparently fail to realize that what makes the conscience CERTAIN is that it thinks it KNOWS the objective moral law in a given case. Hardly does this constitute an affirmation that the conscience can ever act AGAINST what it knows to be objectively immoral – but that is what part 2 of your position entails]

“#1783: Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. [ http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm ] Some dissenting theologians in The Church prefer, I’m sure,that the last section of that sentence did not exist.”

Continued . . .

Posted by Elaine on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 5:02 AM (EST):

Thank you Lord for giving us this good Bishop who is staying “in touch” with the morality and ethics taught by Christianity for over 2000 years. Those who say he is out of touch with reality (Ann Rice who couldn’t stick with the discipline necessary to remain Christian) or anyone accusing this very good man of extortion have chosen the wide path to follow. The path that so many who lack faith in this time of darkness have chosen. Be sure, if you stay on this path, those with you will not recognize you, nor esteem you much less follow you, when your day comes to stand before the Almighty. Belive it for the sake of your own soul.

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 4:34 AM (EST):

@Analysis,

Thank you. Actually, I did see that, and I listened to the program, so thank you for posting it. There is little doubt in my mind that the hospital is presenting themselves in the best possible light. We will never know all the facts in this situation, nor do we need to know them. The Bishop has made his decision, he did not come to it lightly, and it’s obvious it grieved him to do it.

THe hospital seems to be going to great lengths to justify this as not being a direct abortion, but the other numerous and varied violations of the ERD by CHW makes this abortion question pretty much moot anyway. Their attitude towards the reforms the Bishop sought for the last 7 years has shown clearly that they are not respecting the Bishop’s authoriity, and they have no intention of changing their practices to come into line with the ERD.

We now must pray for the Bishop in San Francisco, who must take the baton from Olmstead, since this is where CHW is headquartered. And, the rest of the Bishops, too, since these same violations are no doubt occurring in all the diocese in the US!

Here’s a radio transcript with an interview with the Bishop and other priests where it’s clearly stated there was more time than folks have been lead to believe. This is according to what hospital officials were telling the Bishop and his staff:

This will help you see through some of the false perceptions in the media out there that have been intentionally placed in order to make Bishop Olmsted look poorly and will give you a little insight into why the Bishop took the stance regarding this abortion.

God bless.

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 3:30 AM (EST):

Whoops! I meant to say: “I appreciate your time, Father, so I would NOT ask you to explain it to me,...”

Sorry! Merry Christmas!

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 3:24 AM (EST):

Fr. George:

Thank you again for your input into the discussion. I agree totally that, even if the abortion does meet the criteria for the principle of double effect, the many other apparent violations of the ERD have not been explained. Rather, according to the Bishop, they have attempted only to justify them. So, this one abortion, tragic as it is, is not the ONLY issue involved. Maybe it was just the “staw which broke the camel’s back”.

I, and I think many others, would benefit greatly if Bishop Olmstead would explain specifically why he has concluded that the abortion was direct, rather than “non-direct” as the hospital asserts. Obviously, he has more information than we do, (within HIPPA regs) with which to make that judgment, but it would be very educational for those interested to understand his reasoning, and why he opposes the hospital’s and Sr. McBride’s explanations.

To me, an ectopic pregnancy is a “no-brainer” as a qualifier for the PDE. The nascent child is not in his/her natural place (the uterus), and since the fallopian tubes, cervix, or any extra-uteran environment are not designed to sustain a growing fetus, removal of the child would not be an injustice depriving him/her of life. Survival of the nascent child would be highly improbable.

A cancerous uterus is a bit more difficult for me, but I think I get it. The child is in his/her natural place (the uterus), but the diseased uterus may be insufficient to sustain the pregnancy, and may even threaten the mother’s life if not removed immediately. Removal of the diseased uterus would not be an action performed (intended) to kill the child, so would qualify under the PDE.

St. Joseph’s claims what they did qualified as PDE, the Bishop says “no.” After reading all the news stories about this since May (which referred to it as an “abortion” - even their own spokespersons used that term), and reading their 24 page PDF, I can’t see how they can justify this as falling under the PDE. I wish the Bishop would enlighten us as to the specifics of why he says “No.” I believe this can be done without knowing anything more about the woman’s medical condition than we already know.

I appreciate your time, Father, so I would ask you to explain it to me, but if anyone else could explain this to me, I would be very grateful.

Thank you again, Father, and may you have a very blessed Christmas. Please pray for me!

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 2:45 AM (EST):

Correction:

In my previous post, I made a serious typo (and no way to correct it on this blog).
I wrote: Even in a large hospital, there are that many cases where Directive 47 applies. And, I can speak to that personally because of work I’ve done in my own ministry. In nearly 30 years of ministry, some in hospital settings and some in parishes, I’ve never had to assist in a decision where Directive 47 applies even in a large hospital.

What I intended to type was this: “Even in a large hospital, there ARE NOT that many cases where Directive 47 applies. ...”

While there ARE many life and death issues addressed regularly by Ethics Committees, situations which involve Directive 47 are exceedingly rare and the U.S. Bishops knew this when they developed Directive 47.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 2:38 AM (EST):

@TheresaEE:
This may be my last posting until after Christmas. I’m surprised I was able to post this much. :-).

I’m sorry for the confusion. That’s probably my fault because I first posted and mentioned the theologians who impacted most strongly my spirituality, etc.

Saint Joseph’s Hospital claims, in its press release, that had they not taken the abortion option, there would have been nearly 100% mortality rate for both mother and unborn baby. If true, Sister McBride and the ethics committee may have felt, honestly, that Directive 47 applied because the loss of both lives would have been “a greater intrinsic evil”. Since we don’t have the medical records, which are protected by Federal Law, we probably will never know—not that it’s any of our business.

What has come to light, if Bishop Olmsted is correct is that CHW has a history at Saint Joseph’s of disregarding Catholic teaching (and, I would say, it’s own written policies) regarding “reproductive issues” and perhaps other issues as well. Regardless of whether McBride and the Committee made the correct decision that Directive 47 applied in this case, that would not justify repeated violations of ERD over a period of years and, if you read CHW’s “policy statement” for its Non-Catholic hospitals, repeated violations of its own corporate Statement of Shared Values and Ethics.

Even in a large hospital, there are that many cases where Directive 47 applies. And, I can speak to that personally because of work I’ve done in my own ministry. In nearly 30 years of ministry, some in hospital settings and some in parishes, I’ve never had to assist in a decision where Directive 47 applies even in a large hospital.

I think the best we can do is pray for God’s grace for all concerned, for healing.

Regarding the Press, is it any wonder that they pumped this up with intentional or unintentional misinformation? It’s dramatic and it sells commercials or sales papers. And it makes the Church look bad to boot: A winning situation from their perspective even if it damages the care of souls.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Robert George

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:54 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

Yes, I think we agree on most things we’ve discussed. Most especially about the receipt of government funds. I read about a priest in New Jersey a few years ago, who was struggling with keeping his inner city Catholic school open for lack of funds. He received a $5000 donation from a Catholic Democratic politician, who is noted for his active support of abortion “rights” and his consistent “no” votes on pro-life legislation. The priest sent his check back to him, with a kind note saying he couldn’t accept his money! He couldn’t, in good conscience, take the money from a man who so actively opposed the Church’s teachings on the sacredness of all human life.

The last I checked, this priest had received over $60,000 in donations from people who heard about what he did. Thus, I am convinced that, when Catholic institutions are entirely faithful to the Church’s teachings, and do not accept government money, God will provide for them.

I would say, though, that while this abortion case is the worst possible case to go to battle over, I do not believe that was the Bishop’s fault.

Apparently, he has been involved in discussion with CHW for 7 years, and we have only heard about this since May, when he very privately and confidentially, notified Sr. McBride that she had incurred an automatic excommunication. He has maintained that neither he, nor anyone in his office, made this matter public.

The fault for that, I believe, lies directly with the media. It was THEY who picked this battle, for precisely the reason the Bishop would have avoided it like the plague. I remember the headlines: “Nun Excommunicated for Saving Woman’s Life” - like there is a Canon specifically directing excommunication for saving peoples’ lives!

No, it was not the Bishop who picked this battle. It was handpicked by the Media to paint him, and the Catholic Church, in the worst possible light, and to promote the passage of legislation which will ultimately force Catholic doctors, health care workers, and hospitals to perform abortions against their conscience, and against the Catholic Church’s ethical directives.

In a way, I am glad this is all coming to a head. It’s been brewing for years - Catholic hospitals staddling the fence, to receive both government funds, and yet maintain their Catholic identity. The time is coming for Catholic-in-Name-Only institutions to choose.

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:37 AM (EST):

@Fr. George:

Thank you for your response. I, and I think others, did have the apparently false impression that you would have supported a direct abortion, rather than one which was justified under the principle of double effect.

You stated: “If a panel of physicians assured me in detail that without the abortion, both mother and the unborn child were going to die with no chance of survival for either, and if I sincerely believed that Directive 47 applied, I would, after prayer and reflection, approve the procedure—but… Heaven help those doctors if they misrepresented the medical situation for convenience or because it was easier or cheaper.”

When I first read about this situation, back in May, I sincerely believed that Sr. McBride believed the abortion was justified under that principle of double effect. And, personally, I believe that, had it been just this one instance, Bishop Olmstead would not have taken the steps he has taken to deny the hospital the right to call itself “Catholic.” Objectively speaking, whether they were correct in their interpretation of the ERD 47 or not, their subjective guilt in this instance may have been mitigated by their misunderstanding, if in fact, there was one.

But, sadly, like so many other Catholic hospitals, the receipt of government funds has put the hospitals in an impossible situation. They can’t adhere faithfully to Catholic ethical directives, and government regulations at the same time. Thus, there have been many, many abuses of the ERD at CHW over the past 26 years. I have no doubt that this unfortunate outcome is the tip of the iceburg.

You have stated: “While the decision may weigh heavily on all members of the Ethics Committee, I suspect that it will weigh heaviest on the heart of Sister McBride—even if she did follow her conscience as I suspect.”

I agree that of all the members of the Committed, Sr. McBride may be the one who feels the most pain. Her silence these many months has been interpreted by some as speaking volumes - some insist she is defying the Bishop, others say she is repentant. Regardless of what her silence “says”, I respect her for maintaining her silence, and I pray for her peace.

But, I think this decision may weigh the heaviest on the mother, who initially refused an abortion, and who will now live the rest of her life knowing that she is alive because her child was killed. Regardless of the circumstances leading up to the abortion, she will join the Legion of woman who now suffer unspeakable pain for having assented to a decision that deprived another human being of his or her life.

My prayers are with all parties involved, but mostly, this mother, and the Bishop of Phoenix.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:32 AM (EST):

TheresaEE,

We absolutely agree on one thing. The government money is a problem and as painful as it might be it may be purifying to just turn it down. As a libertarian, I hope these conflicts will motivate all Christians to see the virtue of small government but that is besides the point.

I am also concerned that alternate treatments were not given. I was very angry the other day, when I spoke about an open process but one of the reason I want to have a more open process is for the wholeness of the community. I think if the Catholic community could feel like they are a part of the discussion and if both sides gets to offer the testimony, it might reduce speculation and resentment. The Amish do this. No one is excommunicated without a “trial” before the community and he is given the chance to defend himself. They have an 85% retention rate and I think we can learn a lot from them.

Anyway, I am unhappy with the ACLU involvement and all the bad press.

As for the child being a threat, I am speaking hypothetically. I think it is very rare for that to be the case. It may be that the uterus (or the placenta) is a threat and which case, that has to be tackled, again hypothetically.

I really don’t think we disagree that much. I do wish the bishop had not chosen this case to make an issue. If there are other concerns, I think prudence dictates that he get them on those, not the sympathetic story of a very sick woman. Sometimes, you have to pick your battles wisely. I know that many are walking from the Church right now (like Anne Rice) over things like this and it is not worth it. If the hospital has engaged in a consistent pattern of misdeeds, pick a less sympathetic case.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by TheresaEE on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:13 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

I don’t like to use religious arguments either to support my belief that direct abortion is illicit. However, this being a religious periodical, I think the religious argument appropriate. Nor do I imply that a Catholic doctor should ever impose such a sacrifice (as to give her life rather than allow her child to be killed) on a pregnant woman, Catholic or not.

That being said, I also do not believe that anyone has the right to force the Catholic doctor or hospital to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life. And this is precisely what some are attempting to do (the ACLU, for instance). I have read comments by Anne Rice on other posts where she has stated (and I paraphrase), that doctors who refuse to perform an abortion to save a woman should be charged with murder.

If a Catholic doctor or hospital refuses to perform direct abortions to save a woman’s life, many see this precisely as “forcing” the woman to die! In my opinion, this is nothing short of barbaric.

I believe that Catholic hospitals who accept government funds have been making a huge mistake, because it virtually forces them to comprimise Catholic principles.

You have stated: “I would say that it is wrong to kill the crying child because it is not the crying child that is the real threat but the soldiers.”

I feel much the same way about the abortion we have been discussing here. It was not the child who was the threat to the woman’s life, as is made clear in the Commonweal PDF from the hospital. Nor was it a diseased placenta, per se. The placenta was functioning normally. The threat was coming directly from the woman’s diseased CV system - her veins and arteries. Thus, the progesterone produced at 10 weeks by the healthy-functioning placenta was putting stress on the already diseased CV system.

As such, I do not see the child as a direct threat. The child was not the disease, and should not have been treated as such, anymore than the child in the scenario presented above was the threat (it was the Nazi soldiers).

As you yourself suggested, other means may have been tried to keep the child quiet. I submit that there is no evidence the woman’s doctor attempted any alternative treatment for this woman when she was only 7.5 weeks pregnant. If he had, I feel certain the hospital would have noted that treatment alternative as having been insufficient. There is simply no indication that ANY means, other than abortion, was attempted as a treatment option for this woman, by her physician, prior to her being seen in the hospital.

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you that an embryo or fetus, being in its natural place, can ever be such a direct and objective “threat” to the life of his/her gravida which would “justify” directly and intentionally killing him/her.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Friday, Dec 24, 2010 12:08 AM (EST):

MaryO,

It all depends on whether or not the placenta was aggravating the woman’s heart problem and if there was no other means to deal with the heart. We can of course debate about what actually happened but if the placenta is the life-threatening problem and if there are no other means to deal to deal with the threat, then the woman can remove the placenta even if that results in the babies death. Of course, treating the root cause, which is the heart problem is the most appropriate and moral option if that can be done.

Peace in Christ,
CKH

Posted by MaryO on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:57 PM (EST):

@Carolyn,
Thanks for your comments. Obviously, those in the movie were not able to take the desirable course. (They were weak, sick, unarmed, and had no way to kill many armed soldiers. They had only one slim shot to sneak out of certain death. The muffling of the baby was somewhat effective but not enough to get them past the final barrier.) This is just what the hospital asserts here. I have no doubt that the hospital would have preferred to defeat the disease and have a healthy baby and a healthy mother. But according to them, that was simply not possible. Therefore, as in the movie, they were faced with the killing of one or the death of all. The hospital asserts that this morally allows them to take the baby’s life. The bishop disagrees because of the principle that we may not take innocent life even to save innocent lives. There are those who say that the bishop is exalting principle over a woman’s life. But leaving feminism out of it, the hospital has chosen to do what the movie adult who killed the infant did. Neither the hospital nor the fictional adult wanted to do what they did. They took what they believed to be the best course open to them. If nothing can be done against the outside agent (the Nazi soldiers/the disease), there is no moral distinction between their actions. That, I think, illustrates the bishop’s point. It is far easier to kill a largely unseen non-verbal, non-cognizant tiny human than to kill a crying and aware three or four year old, for instance; but the moral principle is the same: when the alternative is death for all, you either may or may not kill the innocent in order to save other innocent life.

“I am inclined to believe the hospital that there was not much time, that the baby was dying. Since an 11-week baby cannot live outside the womb without the mother, it makes even less sense to let the mother die since that means the child will soon die as well.”

Here’s a radio transcript with an interview with the Bishop and other priests where it’s clearly stated there was more time than folks have been lead to believe. This is according to what hospital officials were telling the Bishop and his staff:

This will help you see through some of the false perceptions in the media out there that have been intentionally placed in order to make Bishop Olmsted look poorly.

God bless.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:33 PM (EST):

@TheresaEE:

You comment: “....and, like Sister McBride, the consequence might have been that I would have been excommunicated.”

A temporal consequence, easily rectified by sincere repentance and confession. Would another, more serious consequence, be the unspeakable pain of knowing that someone has been deprived of life as a result of a decision you might have made?

I thank our Lord that in nearly 30 years of ministry, I’ve never had to make that choice.

I think my decision and response would be based on some detailed answers that, if I sat on the Committee I would demand. If a panel of physicians assured me in detail that without the abortion, both mother and the unborn child were going to die with no chance of survival for either, and if I sincerely believed that Directive 47 applied, I would, after prayer and reflection, approve the procedure—but… Heaven help those doctors if they misrepresented the medical situation for convenience or because it was easier or cheaper.

My understanding is that without the abortion, mother and baby were to die and that Sister McBride and the ethics committee sincerely believed that Directive 47 of the ERD applied. If so, there is no need for guilt according to the Church.

While the decision may weigh heavily on all members of the Ethics Committee, I suspect that it will weigh heaviest on the heart of Sister McBride—even if she did follow her conscience as I suspect.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:33 PM (EST):

MaryO,

I would say that it is wrong to kill the crying child because it is not the crying child that is the real threat but the soldiers. In keeping with myself defense theory, you can only act against the person that is directly threatening. In this case, it would be licit to kill the soldiers.

Plus, one can only take the steps necessary for self protection. Is wrapping the babies mouth not an option?

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:22 PM (EST):

TheresaEE,

Like I said before, I draw the line at defending oneself against a threat to one’s life. I said that the woman can ask the hospital to take no more than the measures necessary to save her life.

I also generally prefer not to use religious arguments when talking about abortion because that makes it easy for people to dismiss it as a religious issue. Catholics may interpret Jesus’s words to mean that they must give up their body for their children, but a catholic doctor should not impose such high standards on a dying woman. Martyrdom is praiseworthy but it must be freely chosen. Women do have a unique responsibility to protect their children but they also have a right to protect themselves against bodily harm.

I am inclined to believe the hospital that there was not much time, that the baby was dying. Since an 11-week baby cannot live outside the womb without the mother, it makes even less sense to let the mother die since that means the child will soon die as well.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:07 PM (EST):

Here, perhaps, is the crux of the matter at hand and why Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix has stripped St. Joseph’s Medical Center of its status as a Catholic institution and why he stated that Sister McBride excommunicated herself by her choice to support the Ethics Committee’s recommendation.

In objective Catholic moral teaching and, many of us would argue, in basic common Christian teaching from Scripture (applicable to our Protestant brothers and sisters as well), it’s wrong to commit what The Church calls an “intrinsic moral evil” in order to prevent another moral evil. Sister McBride, as a professed Religious of many years, knows this and, earlier discussions here notwithstanding, I also know this. And there’s no real way around this, regardless of what decision any of us might have made or not made if we were in her position at St. Joseph’s.

JPII states, in Veritatis Splendor: With regard to intrinsically evil acts, ..., Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”.

This is why, I think, Carl has repeatedly asked me as a priest to explain my position in regards to this Encyclical. Carl, I have the impression that you thought that I was OK with the horrific reality that an unborn child was aborted to save the life of the mother.

In Veritatis Spendor, JPII continued: If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

I suppose that is what Carl and some of you saw Anne Rice and me doing in our earlier posts—justifying the murder of an unborn child in order to save the mother. That wasn’t exactly my intent.

From what I understand second-hand, it was not what the hospital ethics commitee nor Sister McBride intended. My understanding is that Sister McBride and the hospital felt they were on moral and ethical grounds in accordance with Roman Catholic ERD’s because of Directive 47:

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

I am not a medical professional. I asked a specialist friend about this in light of all the arguments on here and statements about how this the condition could have been treated without the abortion. She told me that, Internet blogs to the contrary and people’s opinion’s from personal experience to the contrary, there may have been medical complications which cannot be disclosed to the public or even to the Bishop because of HIPPA regulations which made this tragic abortion the best, if not only viable option.

Regardless of Catholic teaching, hospitals are licensed by State Hospital Licensing Boards and Accredited by The Joint Commission On Healthcare Organizations to operate in the U.S. and the medical staff licensed by the appropriate professional licensing boards. Because of Federal Privacy Regulations, which trump Canon Law, we may never know whether Directive 47 applied or not—and St. Jospeh’s may just have to continue despite the Catholic heritage as one of CHW’s non-Catholic hospitals.

All in all, a sad, sad situation.

Posted by MaryO on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:04 PM (EST):

I am sad to see such division where it seems that consensus can only be achieved at the expense of truth. I have thought and thought of any non-pregnancy related analogy that could throw some light on the situation.
The one thing that keeps popping up in my head is an old movie that I saw on TV long ago. Six Jews were attempting to escape from the Warsaw Ghetto in WWII. One of them was a newborn who was being carried by his parents and siblings. The newborn was sickly and hungry and so he would whimper and cry as the group walked through sewers underneath the Nazi soldiers. Despite the best efforts of his mother, the infant could not be shushed as the adults whispered and tip-toed mere feet from the soldiers in the otherwise silent night. They were going to have to pass within inches of a line of soldiers in order to get out; but the infant made that impossible. Finally, one of the other adults asked the mother if he could try. Miraculously, he succeeded in quieting the infant and all of them made it to safety. It was only then that the others discovered that the adult had quietly smothered the child. When the parents and the others turned on him, the one who had killed the child pointed out that there had been no chance for any of them. They were going to be caught and that would be certain death for all. It was either six to die or one. He had made the only logical and moral decision and had actually spared the parents the burden of making it.
I wonder if it would have changed the moral landscape if it had been the mother who had smothered the child. Certainly, no one would dispute that she would have been forced into her decision and that she would not have desired the death of the child; but simply was forced to choose between death for all or life for five.
Would this have been a moral decision? I think that no one would dispute that any of the persons in this situation could morally have chosen to die, that the others might have lived. The question for Christians is whether anyone could morally choose to kill the innocent so that other innocents might live. If your answer is “yes”, then the age of the innocent who is chosen to be killed is irrelevant. A crying three year old or four year old would have been just as dangerous to the others, albeit more difficult to kill.
There is a legal maxim that hard cases make bad law. That is, if you violate foundational principle to accommodate a tough case, in very short order, your principal is gone.
I question whether the bishop would have taken the same action if this instance was a solitary one. The fact that he waited for seven years in the face of apparently repeated violations of Catholic principles seems to indicate otherwise. Regardless, the hospital will continue to make operate and make money; but the bishop simply shone light on practices that the hospital had apparently kept well hidden. Would that all bishops had always so valued transparency.

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 10:50 PM (EST):

@Fr. Robert George:

“I have said that I **might** have voted for the same choice had I been the Catholic ethicist on the Committee….”

Why? Valient efforts to save both lives might still result in the death of one, or even both, but that is not the same as directly and intentionally killing one to save the other. Those valient efforts might still result in both lives being saved. But despite either outcome, no one was directly and intentionally killed. Is it “pastoral” to kill one human being so that another may live?

“....and, like Sister McBride, the consequence might have been that I would have been excommunicated.”

A temporal consequence, easily rectified by sincere repentance and confession. Would another, more serious consequence, be the unspeakable pain of knowing that someone has been deprived of life as a result of a decision you might have made?

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 10:20 PM (EST):

[continued]

Many Catholics, including priests, religious and laity, would like a “pick and choose” Catholicism and are often too willing to assert the Church’s historical affirmation of “freedom of conscience” to do so, yet with freedom of conscience comes responsibility to make absolutely certain that one has a properly informed, mature conscience. Otherwise, auch dissent may not be moral, but rather willful disobedience masquerading as proper dissent or perhaps carelessness.

Moral dissent from objective Church teaching is only possible if one has a properly informed, mature conscience. For a Catholic this means that he or she must generally sincerely respect the Magesterium and that he or she undertake a detailed study of what both Scripture and the Magesterium say about the particular issue and WHY both Scripture and the Magesterium say what they do. And, we must also pray for guidance on the issue.

This is not an easy or quick process and without the involved and lengthy exploration I just mentioned. In my experience, most people who wish to object to this or that teaching of the Magisterium, particularly in areas oft called “Reproductive Rights” or “Human Sexuality” fail to go through the process as I outlined in the above paragraph.

While praising the insights and expressions in moral theology that perhaps better reach a contemporary audience, JPII also proclaimed: At the same time, however, within the context of the theological debates which followed the Council, there have developed certain interpretations of Christian morality which are not consistent with “sound teaching” (2 Tim 4:3). Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one. Nevertheless, in order to “reverently preserve and faithfully expound” the word of God, the Magisterium has the duty to state that some trends of theological thinking and certain philosophical affirmations are incompatible with revealed truth.
...Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

Carl, just so you know, that I happen to agree with the concerns JPII expresses.

Germane to the issue at hand, discussed as the topic of the blog, is the choice that the hospital ethics board, including Sister McBride, made: To abort the unborn child that the mother would live.

I have said that I **might** have voted for the same choice had I been the Catholic ethicist on the Committee and, like Sister McBride, the consequence might have been that I would have been excommunicated. The statements affirming the Church’s historical teaching of following one’s conscience do, in fact, mention that excommunication is a possible consequence when one follows one’s conscience in opposition to objective church teaching. And consequences are often more serious, as a practical matter, for diocesan priests, religious brothers and priests and religious sisters than for laity. We are the “religious professionals” who’ve made promises (diocesan priests) or vows (members of religious communities and monastic orders). I am Thankful to God that neither my religious community nor have ever faced that situation in relation to the ministry that I do and have done in the past, although I’ve certainly sat on committees where serious decisions were being made that affected people’s lives.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 10:13 PM (EST):

Dear Carl et al:

Because this had become so time consuming (and Christmas to boot), I had decided to step away, but a friend who reads this blog sent an email to my Android asking me, for the sake of the Faith many of us share and love, to step in one more time and to clarify.

I assure those of you reading this, I do not intend a “hijack” or to get way off topic, so bear with me please and I’ll show, I hope, why this is so important, why there seems to be such a “diversity” among people who consider ourselves “good Catholics” and why this all has a direct bearing on this particular situation—that of this tragic situation in which a young mother’s unborn child was killed to save her life, a Catholic-identified hospital lost its certification and a longtime Catholic religious was, at least for a time, excommunicated.

Carl, you noticed and I admitted, Rahner’s strong influence or voice in my original statements about a Catholic’s obligation to follow dictates of conscience (also known as “subjective moral reasoning”) even with this conflicts with the official objective moral teaching of the Church (“objective moral reasoning”).

What I wrote, which concerns you greatly, is:

However, it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality (official Church teaching) once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way.

My statement reflects a long tradition regarding primacy of Conscience in the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical, Veritatis Splendor not withstanding.

Some examples, including one from The Late Pontiff himself:

“He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

“It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one’s conscience.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.”
- Pope John Paul II in his book, Crossing The Threshold of Hope

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.” - Human Life in Our Day, A Statement Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 15, 1968)

“We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . . Some situations oblige one to obey God and one’s own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one’s own conscience.” - Cardinal Walter Kasper (President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; President from 2001-2010); author of the great text, Jesus: The Christ.

and as a final example, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” - Catechism of The Catholic Church (#1800] although that same document clearly warns that if an error is made, a person is not necessarily free from guilt from the consequences based on the poorly formed or faulty conscience. Futhermore, I would draw everyone’s attention to #1783: Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. [ http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm ] Some dissenting theologians in The Church prefer, I’m sure,that the last section of that sentence did not exist.

The key to my statement and to the consistent Church teaching on primacy of conscience is that a moral person can only follow his or her conscience when it opposes objective Church teaching, once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way. That is, neither I nor historic Church teaching support moral relativism which results if one simply asserts primacy of conscience over the objective moral teaching of the Church willy-nilly. I should have made this clear earlier in the discussion.

It is precisely this tendency toward unbridled moral relativism which developed among some moral theologians in universities, graduate schools and seminaries—and sadly in some of our secondary school religion programs as well—which, I think, prompted John Paul II to issue Veritatis Splendor.
[continued]

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 10:04 PM (EST):

@Carl,

If you are still reading, I just want to THANK YOU for your posts! They are so well articulated, and have helped me a great deal.

I am a “revert” - having left the Church right after Vatican II, when it appeared that the Church had “changed” many of her teachings which were once held to be inviolable. I was very much influenced by the assertions put forth by priests, (like Fr. Robert George), Catechists, Religious Ed teachers, etc., that we must “follow our conscience” even if it means we are in direct disagreement with the Magesterium. I thus found myself able to “rationalize” many sins - so I wholeheartedly agree that such erroneous teaching (the very basis of most of the dissent these last 40 years) followed to its logical conclusion, leads inevitably to moral relativism.

It took many years, and much study, for me to discover that it was I, not the Church, who was wrong. Her iviolable teachings hadn’t changed - they had just been misrepresented by some priests, theologians, catechists, etc. I still have to live with the consequences which resulted from my rejection of the Church’s teachings in favor of my own “wisdom” and conscience.

As a result, I have little patience for the same tired and very dangerous errors espoused by dissenting theologians, etc. I was very, very, interested in Fr. Robert George’s “response” to your objections, but was not surprised when he failed to even engage your arguments. I found him spilling more ink lamenting the “medium” of communication, than actually communicating.

In short, I saw nothing more than a “cop-out” - excuses for NOT engaging your argument. In addition, I detected more than a little “elitism” in his “concern” that we hoi paloi wouldn’t “understand” such a lofty discussion. Frankly, you were faced with the same communication limitations (the medium) as he was, but you were able to support your position charitably and articulately.

So, you have helped me to realize, once again, that not only do those dissenting on the grounds of “conscience” have nor rational argument for their dissent, (for when pressed to defend their arguments they manage to find excuses, but also that at the very heart of their dissent lies an egoistic elitism that is the opposite of the humility our dear Lord displayed, and asks us to imitiate.

My humble thanks, once again, Carl.

Have a very blessed and holy Feast of the Nativity!!!

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 9:23 PM (EST):

@Carolyn,

“I want more explanation from the bishop because I think you should have to explain why you condemning someone or an institution. Other people have accused the bishop of terrible things on another blog and I defended him there, or more accurately, I defended his motives.”

Thank you for your response. It is true that, while you have questions you would like the Bishop to answer, you have also not assigned to him bad motives, as some do.

In my case, I have many questions for the hospital - and as I have written before, initially, I believed, in good faith, that they (specifically Sr. McBride), had simply misinterpreted the ERD 47. I believed they saw the abortion as clearly justified.

But I have been following this case since May, and it has since come to light that the abortion performed last year was not an isolated incident at CHW. In fact, it is one of many violations of Catholic medical ethics which have taken place - over the past 26 years! The Bishop has been concerned about these violations for 7 years.

Thus, I admit to being a bit cynical in my reading of both the hospital’s actions as well as their defense for performing a direct abortion. While I do believe they fully intended to “save the only life they could save” - but the fact that they downplay and minimize their simultaneous killing of an innocent life, is what I find to be the very crux of the problem in this instance.

I have brought forth a rather “remote” scenario which illustrates my concern that, once we admit that it may sometimes be licit to directly kill an innocent human being to save the life of another - the example of killing an indigent man who has a heart that a rich man needs, or the example of killing the mother to save the child.

While you are correct that the mother/child connection is much different than the indigent/rich man - e.g. the indigent could never be a “threat” to the rich man as the child could be to the mother - I think that there are serious problems nonetheless in admitting the above principle.

1. Where do we draw the line? If we admit this principle, what will stop us from limiting the killing of the innocent to only the unborn child?

2. At least in Catholic thinking, the mother/child connection is all the MORE reason why the more vulnerable nascent human being should be protected - not killed - in a life-threatening situation. Our blessed Lord gave us the example when He said: “This is My Body, which is given for you.”

Obviously, then, for the Catholic, Christ’s example can mean only one thing - that the doctor’s should attempt to save both lives, never directly killing either one, and if the mother or the baby, or both, die, then it is tragically unfortunate, but no one would be guilty of directly killing either one.

Do you believe that, in a Catholic hospital such as St. Joseph’s, it IS licit to sometimes take the life of the child to save the mother? I know you have questions for the Bishop (although I don’t agree with you that he is “condemning” the hospital), but are you comfortable with the fact that a direct abortion was performed at St. Joseph’s last year?

I’m just not real clear on where you are, since you say you still have questions.

Posted by Susan Peterson on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 8:58 PM (EST):

I would be willing to concede that there was some feeling of sympathy involved, some compassion, although I suspect protecting the hospital from legal consequences was also involved. But sometimes one can start with pity and end by committing horrors. In this case we have a dying baby and a young mother, but (provided the story we are given is true, not saying it is, not saying it isn’t) if we wait for the baby to die before we scrape it out of the womb, perhaps by that time the mother will also be beyond saving. (or perhaps not. The moment when someone will die cannot be predicted absolutely.) So we figure that it isn’t so bad, really, to kill this moribund tiny human being a short time before it would die anyway, thus giving its mother a better chance to live for a while longer.

But then, there are so many people to pity. Perhaps the next mother might just be able to make it to 25 weeks pregnant before pulmonary HTN began to kill her, but how cruel to make her be pregnant for so long until her heart is compromised, for a baby that will cost a million dollars before it is discharged from the hospital, probably with significant deficits-if it lives at all. Why not spare her from getting so sick, and spare the baby from the suffering of struggling to live, on a ventilator, with multiple tubes, enduring hundreds of tests? So there is another abortion, of a baby who is NOT dying yet.

And then there will come a girl who is 10 and pregnant by her father. And then one who is 11 and pregnant by her brother. And then one is twelve and pregnant by her mother’s boyfriend. And one who is thirteen and pregnant by a 30 year old guy who worked in a carnival which has left town. How can we let these children go through a pregnancy? What kind of lives will these babies have if born? Anyone with pity in his heart would see that the kind thing to do is to abort these babies.

And soon pity will lead us to where our country is now, killing, what is it, a million unborn babies a year? The church draws a bright line before we even set off down this road. We do not deliberately and directly take innocent human life.

Some people here say that by not killing the baby we will have killed the mother. This is not true. Pulmonary hypertension will have killed her. People that we cannot save die all the time, from disease or injury. If someone can be saved only by killing someone else, then regrettably we cannot save them.

This applies also at the end of life. Here is a person who appears to be almost dead. They aren’t quite brain dead, but it doesn’t look as if they will recover to have much of a life, and here is a person who needs their heart and another who needs their liver….and we are going to keep them alive as a “vegetable” and let those other people who could lead “meaningful lives” die? This path brings you to a point where perhaps you will execute convicts for the sake of their organs as the Chinese are said to do. The Church tells us not to take one step, not the tiniest step, down this road.

I do not believe that the law can yet say to a Catholic hospital, you MUST abort a baby to save it’s mother’s life. I certainly hope it cannot, because the Church will have to refuse, and a hospital which was Catholic would refuse. If it does not refuse, it clearly is not a Catholic hospital.

Back at the turn of the century, (I mean, 1800’s into 1900’s) and sometime into it, before antibiotics and good ways of rehydrating people, women could sometimes survive C sections if done early in labor before they were exhausted and dehydrated and before the membranes had bee long ruptured and they had had many vaginal exams exposing them to bacteria. But if they had been long in labor and unable to give birth, they were unlikely to survive a C section. In those cases one really did have a mother or baby situation. One usually could save the baby, if it was in decent shape after all that labor, by doing a C section, but then its mother would likely die from blood loss and/or infection. Or, one could go in, grab a foot, pull the baby down as far as it would go, and then reach in and crush the head. Old obstetric books had pictures of the instruments used for this operation. Doing this to save the mother was considered the proper thing to do by the medical establishment and by most of the public. But the Church always forbade it, and said that one had to try to save both the mother and the baby, even if that meant they both died. The Church was vilified then for that position, as it is being vilified now. But the government did not shut down Catholic hospitals and try to force them to practice outside of Catholic moral principles. This was considered part of the freedom of religion. If now the government is going to try to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions in certain circumstances, to do tubal ligations and vasectomies, to prescribe contraceptives and carry them in their pharmacies, to give abortifacients to woman who might be pregnant, to give dying patients medications not to ease their pain but to ease them out of life, well, they will have to refuse, no matter what the consequences, and if they do not refuse, then they are not Catholic, and it will have to be made clear that they are not Catholic. This is what Bishop Olmstead is doing. May we have many more bishops like him, because they will be needed.
Susan Peterson

Posted by Chris on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 8:28 PM (EST):

Hi Carolyn,

I am sure there are many incidents that no one knows of, (although even the ones we know of are too many!) & I agree with you that people should be asking themselves whether they should be participating in perpetuating it - but that’s an individual act, not a matter of Catholic doctrine. Is it possible to serve in the military as a faithful Catholic? I suppose it may be difficult, but I don’t think military service is necessarily immoral. As such, I don’t think it reasonable to expect the Church to forbid any military service for any Catholic in the world.

As a system, with few exceptions, the military does not & has not intentionally targeted innocents. Yes, individuals within the military have; and not just rogue soldiers, but commanders in some cases. But such is not inherent to all military service.

Still, there are lots of people, both Catholics & non-, as well as both civilians & soldiers who object to carrying out an unjust war. Many service people have chosen not to re-enlist & apparently there are people who have become conscientious objectors & been discharged.

Specifically, I know there are regulations & a process in USMJ in regards to conscientious objector status for those in the military, although I wouldn’t expect the Church to know about it or how the process works. Apparently, it is not well known & appears difficult to pursue (likely to prevent abuse by people who joined to take but not give.) Regardless, the decision is the responsibility of individual soldiers to make, and that possibility may very well be why the government is so upset with places putting out embarrassing stories, like Wikileaks has.

Yes, the pope has said that the Iraq/Afghanistan war it is an unjust one, as have the USCCB.

I can’t answer for the individual Catholic soldier as to why that is not a good enough reason for him/her to quit.

Perhaps the Church is not lambasting various members of Congress about the war because Congress has (wrongly) abdicated it’s ability to declare war to a single man (the president). Perhaps the Church is not exhorting individual soldiers to become CO’s, because the American government would take such as an attack itself.

That said, the Church has repeatedly stated its concerns that the war is unjust to both the current & former presidents, the best person to voice such concerns to, since the president is the “Commander in Chief” and arguably the most capable person to stop it.

Peace.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 7:30 PM (EST):

Chris,

Given the high number of civilians who have been killed in Iraq, the number of families that have been displaced as a result of our intervention (500,000 Iraqi Christians and millions of muslims), I think Catholic Christians should ask themselves, should I participate in perpetuating this. We have seen videos of innocent people being killed and where there is a video, there’s probably at least ten unrecorded incindents.

Moreover, did the pope not say that Iraq did not live up to the standards of a just war? Did the USCCB not back up that statement? Why is that not enough for a Catholic soldier to say, “I can’t participate?” And why has the hierarchy not pressured law makers on this unjust war as they do on other issues? Why do they not challenge Catholics to become conscientious objectors?

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Chris on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 7:18 PM (EST):

@Carolyn

I understand your puzzlement, but the comparisons you present are “apples & oranges.”

The soldier dropping a bomb would only be as guilty as the politician if he could be as certain that the bomb is targeting innocents, as the congressperson is (or should be, if they have any common sense at all) that abortion targets innocents.

That said, with rare exceptions (most notably Nagasaki & Hiroshima), the military doesn’t ask anyone to “kill the innocent” in war. Terribly, it does happen, and some soldiers even do it knowingly & willingly. In nearly all of the cases I have heard of, when those who targeted innocents have been caught, the military has almost always punished them. (Sadly not always, but then it isn’t particularly rational to blame the Church for the failure of a military to discipline its troops according to Church doctrine.)

Nonetheless, being given orders to say, “destroy an enemy training camp”, or “bomb this weapons factory”, are completely different from being given orders to perform a D&C abortion.

Soldiers rely on their commanders to determine that innocents are NOT being targeted when they are given instructions to bomb something - It is not workable to expect soldiers to perform individual assessments of every situation to make sure that no innocents will be harmed if they follow their orders. On the other hand, an unborn child is obviously an innocent, & it doesn’t take an individual intelligence session to make that apparent. When the Catholic Church condemns as evil the act of directly taking innocent life, it means ALL innocent life - unborn children, sick people, prisoners, bystanders, etc..

As to a “lack” of charity in these countries, the Catholic Church is and has been working all throughout the middle east for years, providing humanitarian assistance to everyone who has in need, especially those affected by war & violence. Check into Catholic Relief Services, the official overseas relief agency of the US Conf. of Catholic Bishops.

http://crs.org

In regards to Anne’s constant chorus of “the hospital stood up to the Bishop and won”? The only thing the hospital has done is abandon the Catholic Church. I suppose I can understand why Ms. Rice would think that abandoning the Catholic Church is the right thing to do - otherwise she would be condemning herself.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 6:05 PM (EST):

Dear Anne,

“Because this is NOT what your church teaches,
and claims to the contrary do not make it so.”

Nor do claims that it IS so - make it so.

“They have always found ways to justify the killing of
innocents in war, and they have always enshrined
ways for the ends to justify the means.”

Assertion, not an argument

“Nuanced and abstract arguments that claim not to be
doing this, do in fact do it all the time.”

Assertion, not an argument

“Perhaps they should not be
allowed to be bomber pilots. Perhaps you should take a
real stand against killing in all forms.
Perhaps a Ghandi approach is the only moral approach.”

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. But what REASON might you give for such recommendations?

“But the fact is, your church doesn’t teach this and it has not
since the fourth century.”

Assertion, not an argument.

“I believe it is also good news for the Faithful of the Catholic Church.
I think Bishop Olmsted has lost this battle, and with reason.
I think the hospital in standing up to him has made the right moral choice. I am confident in time that canon law will reflect a more
enlightened and honest and responsible attitude to the
unique situations that pregnant women face.”

I believe, I think, I think, I am confident. Fine but why? More assertion, no argument.

“I am sure many of you will agree, when I say that I believe
with all my heart in Jesus Christ and that He is there for us
in our confusion, in our struggles, in our humanity, in our pain.”

But of course, charity demands that we accept at face value what a person tells us regarding their internal dispositions.

Be that as it may Anne, I am sorry to say that your parting diatribe is one of the most petulant, sophomoric, and pathetic screeds I have ever encountered.

Assertions are not arguments, and until you begin to take that point seriously; intelligent people will tend to be dismissive of your position. Any person with a keyboard can rant. It takes effort and courage to dialouge.

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by Joe on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 6:04 PM (EST):

Ms. Rice,

Sr. McBride and CHW aren’t being condemned by the Church, they’ve condemned themselves. When one sins, God doesn’t condemn them, they condemn themselves. Bp. Olmstead didn’t excommunicate Sr. McBride, he explained to her that she had excommunicated herself.

You had it right when you explained a few months back that you were choosing to leave the Church because you couldn’t come to grip with Christ’s teachings. Extend the same logic to those above who have joined you. Just like you, they’ve made a choice, they took a stand, they decided that they were finished accepting God’s grace to do His will. You are being inconsistent by congratulating them, then turning around and complaining that the Church (including Her members that have not chosen to eat of the fruit in such a direct way) has condemned them. If they are acting freely and are choosing the way of Babel, like you, then it really shouldn’t matter at all if the Church has condemned you or them (even when She clearly hasn’t).

Anyhow, I hope you humbly return one day to share in the Body and Blood of Christ with us again and leave the choatic church of secularism you’ve recently joined.

Posted by David B. on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 6:02 PM (EST):

Anne, you are wrong. I went to the Vatican’s website. I quote:

“1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.”

You are either woefully misinformed, or self-deceiving. I see no other alternative explanations for your shocking ignorance.

Posted by Joe on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:53 PM (EST):

Abscissio said:

“The Catholic Church, at the time of our revolution and subsequent drafting of the Constitution, was the biggest threat to the republic and personal freedoms our forefathers fought to preserve. Do not expect that you will win this battle against our “pathetic secular virtues.” Too much blood has been spilled to guarantee our freedoms.”

Thus proving what an ignorant moron he really is. LOL! Are you reading more crap historical fiction written by Anne?

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:53 PM (EST):

I think it is important to say it again.

And they will know we are Christians by our love.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Whatever your thought are, please express them in a way that reflects the mandates of the Scriptures above.

Now, as for war. It seems to me that the Catholic Church would insist that we disobey direct orders from legitimate authority if they asked us to perform abortions. Even if we swore to obey such persons, we would have to disobey them in such cases. Therefore, I don’t see why it is inappropriate to disobey authorities who ask you to kill the innocent in war. Yes, war does not work that way but perhaps, we ought to start having the spine to disobey unjust orders in the case of war. The Catholic Church has said that the war in Iraq did not live up to the standards of a just war, she has pointed out the human suffering that it has caused, yet, no condemnation has been made to the persons who brought it about. No Catholic has been asked to participate in that atrocity. It seems to me that the soldier whose bomb kills innocent civilians is guilty in a MORE DIRECT WAY than the congress person who votes for a health care legislation that may allow payments for abortion, which are already legal. That is a glaring inconsistency.

As for praying for our soldiers, I have no problem with that but I can’t remember the last time, I heard a prayer petition at mass for the Iraqi people who are suffering a great deal more than our soldiers. I am concerned by the utter lack of charity that wars allows us to justify. If a natural disaster occurs, we are rightly pour out donations but when innocent civilians suffer greatly that we are at war with, we show no such compassion. I am all for offering prayers for our soldiers, or the people of Haiti, but let’s include the people of Iraqi and Afganistan in those prayers. The man-made disasters they suffer under are at least as bad.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

P.S. I did not support the health care plan and unlike the bishops, I would not have supported even if there was no possibility that it would pay for abortion. My only point is that if we are going condemn people like Bart Stupack who supported it for reasons other than abortion than let us hear the condemnation for people who voted for the war that Church says is not just.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:44 PM (EST):

I feel I have done all I can here.
I thank the person running this blog for
allowing me to post, and I thank all those
who have contributed to it.

For those of you who are condemning Sr. McBride,
St. Joseph’s and Sr. Carol Keehan,
I believe your problem is really with your church.
If you truly believe that the end can never justify the means,
or that to kill an innocent person is always evil,
then really, you’re wasting time talking to me.
You should talk to your church.
Because this is NOT what your church teaches,
and claims to the contrary do not make it so.
I do not want to be sarcastic, but perhaps it would
be best for you to meet with your bishops and your
theologians in Rome.
They have always found ways to justify the killing of
innocents in war, and they have always enshrined
ways for the ends to justify the means.
Nuanced and abstract arguments that claim not to be
doing this, do in fact do it all the time.
Perhaps Catholics should not be allowed by your church
to go into the armed services. Perhaps they should not be
allowed to be bomber pilots. Perhaps you should take a
real stand against killing in all forms.
Perhaps a Ghandi approach is the only moral approach.
But the fact is, your church doesn’t teach this and it has not
since the fourth century.
And your argument is not with me, it’s with your church.
Good luck to you.
Again I thank everyone who participated here.
I think this story is vitally important, and
I will continue to pursue it in other places.
This morning both the New York Times and the Washington Post
responded to the story, and this is good news for Sr. McBride,
for Sr.Keehan, for Catholic hospitals and good for all Americans,
and especially American women.
I believe it is also good news for the Faithful of the Catholic Church.
I think Bishop Olmsted has lost this battle, and with reason.
I think the hospital in standing up to him has made the right moral choice.

I am confident in time that canon law will reflect a more
enlightened and honest and responsible attitude to the
unique situations that pregnant women face.

Whatever, I wish you all a merry Christmas.
I am sure many of you will agree, when I say that I believe
with all my heart in Jesus Christ and that He is there for us
in our confusion, in our struggles, in our humanity, in our pain.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Posted by Chris on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:29 PM (EST):

Ms. Rice,

Put up or shut up.

Forgive my harsh tone, but I find it quite annoying to be subjected to your inconsistent rants exclaiming the authority of the individual over the Church created by Christ, which he granted authority & to whom He promised protection & guidance.

So allow me to elaborate.

Please provide the canon law or the doctrinal teachings presented by the Catholic Church that says that anyone, including innocent women & children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan should be killed by unjust wars prosecuted by politicians & cheered on by a complicit media?

Do you object to individual Catholics praying for the soldiers in our volunteer armies? Are the prayers being laden with “And may they kill those heathen pieces of garbage real good, in Jesus name Amen”??

Of course not. Everyone I know who prays for American soldiers prays for their protection, not for them to rack up impressive body counts of innocents. Many of us who pray for the protection, avoidance of death & destruction, & most importantly, the safe return of soldiers, have friends &/or family members who have been sent out on them by politicians intent on forcing the world to adopt their preferred model of Western oligarchy in unjust wars of occupation.

Should the Church be insisting that every soldier in the world decide on whether every orders they have been given is just & if they personally disagree, to just perform mutiny & quit? No military in the world works like a job at the gas station - you can’t just quit whenever the mood strikes you.

The principle that it is intrinsically evil to directly & intentionally take innocent human life is universal. The Catholic Church does not put the life of anyone over anyone else, including the scenario that has so offended your delicate sensibilities. The Catholic Church values all life, so much so that it holds that NO innocent life may be taken for any reason.
Not because of fear or risk.
Not because the rubber broke or you’re angry at the father (rape, incest, cheating boyfriend, etc.).
And not even to save another’s life, like in this case you are so emotionally invested in - which is just a case of favoring the strong over the weak.

Yes, the mother was weak, but the baby was weaker. The baby was not killing the mother, the disease was. The disease was not treated directly - the child was killed in order to lessen the symptoms. That makes it a direct abortion, which is wrong.

The Catholic Church has been speaking out against this war for 8 YEARS. Here’s a good place to start to see what the Church has been saying about it:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/quote.shtml

Not that many folks have been listening. Apparently such an issue is less important that whether the Church will accept that innocent children can be killed as long as one comes up with a reason that is emotionally satisfying enough.

I suggest you provide proof that the Catholic Church has been attempting to justify an unjust war while persecuting “Saints” McBride, Keehan & this particular woman, or remain silent & learn what you’re talking about before you continue to rant about how you or any individual has the knowledge & wisdom to trump 2,000 years of constant prayer, study, & careful consideration of issues pertaining to faith & morals.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:15 PM (EST):

And I must add, that she seems intent on requiring that those who disagree with her give substantive responses to her objections; while all the while refusing to respond to those who have put, at least equally challenging, objections to her. It would be refreshing if our novelist would consider a dialouge instead of a continual monolouge.

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:10 PM (EST):

Carolyn,

Nice response to Anne. She and theologians like Noonan very often fail to (refuse to?)make some rather crucial ditinctions. To name a few:

1.) Murder is not killing - but killing of the innocent. Killing of the innocent is always gravely evil.

2.) The fact that Catholics or even prelates fail to uphold in their personal life and witness the moral principles they espouse, does not entail inconsistency or hypocrisy in the moral teaching they proclaim, but rather inconsistency and hypocrisy in the personal behavior they exhibit.

3.) What is licit in itself (capital punishment, where the guilty are killed to preserve the saftey of the innocent), can be rendered immoral when circumstances present some better means of achieving the same goal (protecting the innocent) - such as adequate penal housing.

4.) One can sin objectively, but without cuplability, if one is invincibly ignorant concerning the moral species of a deed.

Attention to basic distinctions such as these render the so-called inconsistencies, consistent. Anne says she studied Catholic theology, history, etc. for 12 years but I wonder how seriously she engaged the Catholic positions on these matters, as her objections seem to display a rather ham-handed approach to a difficult subject requiring careful and attentive distinctions.

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by joanie on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:35 PM (EST):

Read, re-read, repeat, there you have it. I can’t imagine that Sr. McBride herself would appreciate your attacks on the Church that she has professed to and let’s face it has stayed in as a religious sister all these years. I think we need to ask her why a little cooperation with the diocese isn’t in order, unless it is about the money, I mean the billions. You have no further information to offer us as to the case and are not a physician. I see too that our cleric Father Robert George has fled the discussion after concurring that what indeed took place was an abortion and that he prayed for the unborn child’s soul. You haven’t had a true conversation after multiple posts, unless you believe that a conversation is one-sided wherein one party repeats the same over and over. I already proposed to you that we treat hypothetically that what happened was debateable using the sources you have advanced. So why should the hospital not the, going forward, leaving the tragedy of the death of this child aside, work collaboratively with its own bishops or the entire bishops conference for that matter? The regulations already permit that an unborn child may die in certain contexts. It is not about the procedure, the woman’s sad story, or the abortion ultimately. Because if it were we would not even be here having what you term a discussion though you have hijacked the comments to repeat yourself over and over without acknowledging any of the points that good people, praying people, members of the Church you so despise have nicely articulated, sometimes impatiently enough. This is about millions and millions of dollars and a corporate governance, not just one religious sister, who have run an operation contrary to Catholic teaching for many years now and is only exploiting the tragedy of this woman’s near death experience and the loss of her child as a way to continue on their money making path. This isn’t about canon law or doctrine. It is all about money and lots of it. Why else would you continue to stand here and bark at us about how evil and corrupt our church is when you have won all the goodies you stand for, artificial hormones and contraception, for the poor, apparently, sterilization, and abortion when and how you dictate the same permissible. Thank goodness the Church does have a doctrine and a canon law in place and that the faithful can make up their own consciences about what constitutes Catholic and not feel they must bow down just because a giant secular organism of a corporation proclaims it so.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:25 PM (EST):

Dear Fr. George,

Indeed, it would require a book and this is surely not the place to debate the contents of Veritatis Splendor. I do think it was written to neutralize many of the moral theories which had currency in catholic seminaries at the time it was penned - including Rahner’s existentialist/essentialist dichotomy. I also understand that its encyclical status does not rise to that of binding dogma. But I do think it, along with the work and pontificate of Benedict XVI, and the prior Magisterial record reveal a strong resistance to the “conscience-trumps-all” position; although we could perhaps nit-pick the Magisterial status of the monuments of tradition in which this resistance (which I claim is evident) can be found. Most telling, I think it can be demonstrated that Rahner, Kung and others admit/know/lament that a real conflict does exist between the Magisterial position and their own.

But, to reflect the heart of the matter for myself; the issue is deeper than the mere fact that “the Magisterium says so”. Rather, my concern lies most deeply with what I believe to be the Magisterium’s REASON for taking the position that it does. I simply cannot see how an elevation of subjective conscience over objective moral laws - that are known to be objective moral laws - can avoid a functional reduction into moral relativism. I mean to say that conscience as a trump card against a known moral law such that one can “in good conscience” do what one knows to be evil seems indistinguishable from the biblical (and Traditional) warning against every man “doing what seems right in his own eyes”. I hope you can understand, even if you cannot embrace, the root of this concern. As much as I shrink from the idea of challenging a priest, I am remain baffled by the notion that you advocate to the position that:

“However, it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality (official Church teaching) once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way”

It just strikes me as voice of Karl Rahner, et. al., than that of the Magisterium. One’s behavior in the situation is bound by his rightly formed conscience. One’s assessment of the situation has not the power to reformulate the demands of the moral law - even though the appropriate application of such demands, given circumstances, can be difficult indeed. I have simply never encountered the “authentic” teaching you advance in any of the Magisterial documents of Christian history. I am aware that it is a position that many theologians over the last 40 years would very much LIKE to be authentic Catholic teaching, but it isn’t. As I think you recognize; how one approaches this seemingly technical point about the role and authority of conscience in relation to objective moral law sets the trajectory for one’s ethical outlook.

Also, I would like to say this (which I should have said earlier). I am <gasp> quite liberal in resisting those who attempt to specify moral teachings as infallible, when they are, in fact, not. We should extend every last ounce of charity where the Church has not spoken definitively to some moral issue, especially a complex one. In such situations, charity demands respect for difference of opinion among our brothers and sisters. There is a lot of disputed ground between so called conservatives and progressives which can be possessed together peacefully by paying attention to this point. Still, it seems to me that both abortion, as well as the principle that “ends cannot justify the means” are very much definitive/official teachings. I cannot see how your position (or that of Kung, Rahner, etc.) as you have expressed it and I have understood it, can avoid a collision with one or both of these teachings. The later being the crucial barrier against moral anarchy.

Pax et Bonum,

Carl

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:20 PM (EST):

Joanie, I have explained repeatedly why I am here.
I do not think it will serve this conversation for me
to go into yet another lengthy explanation of my concerns.

Your church puts the life of the unborn child above the
life of the dying mother in a failed pregnancy.
I insist that this requires re-examination.
It is immoral in my view,
and obviously many many Catholics agree.
I support Sr. McBride.
I support St. Joe’s hospital.
I support Sr. Carol Keehan.
Perhaps your quarrel is with them.

This is not a school yard shouting match.
It isn’t a junior high school debate.
It is a conversation.
I think we are required here to make our posts
coherent and substantive.
I have tried to do that.
If you do not understand my position,
or what I see as the issues, I suggest you reread the blog.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:19 PM (EST):

Anne,

1. I think the Church does not do enough to condemn Catholic participation in unjust wars. While they condemned the Iraq war, they have certainly not condemned congress people who voted for it and soldiers who participate. I think it’s a problem. The Iraq war has killed many innocent people, including children. It has displaced 500,000 innocent Christians.

2. The Church’s position on the death penalty is a recent thing and it is not unconditional. They have never said it is an intrinsic moral evil only that given our modern capabilities it is better to show mercy and not use the death penalty.

3. As for Thomas Moore, I think if some dies as a martyr, it washes away their sins. The Church does not hold everything you have done against you. I think if an abortionist converted and was martyred, we would still honor him. But let’s be honest; this was a period when lots of people were burning heretics and unfortunately, it was not seen as the grave moral evil that it is.

Peace in Christ,
CKH

Posted by joanie on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:15 PM (EST):

Anne you seem to wish for people to feel that somehow you are more humane than the rest of us for caring more about the woman than the child. I certainly do not treat anyone that they are not a member of the human race and I don’t care for your accusation at me whom you do not know. Even in the case of a so-called just war (to fight the Nazis, anyone?) by your own criteria which would lead us all down the very dangerous road of evaluating just whose life is inherently more worthy of dignity and respect the unborn child should then be treated with the utmost respect as compared to any person who has lived and undoubtedly sinned as much as the next person. Even the cleric weighing in on this board says that the procedure which was done was an abortion. You said it then you denied it then you said it again. You can’t have it all ways.

You are not an m.d. and do not have all of the facts on this patient, you read all the same things the rest of us have read.

Your problem is not with this bishop and it is now more than clear that you are exploiting this nun’s predicament to serve your own purposes, namely that you would like the Church to change its position altogether on abortion.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:05 PM (EST):

Joanie, apparently you don’t understand
what your church teaches.
Innocent women and children are killed by the thousands
in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They are not armed soldiers.
Yet Catholics pray at Mass for the Catholic soldiers in our volunteer armies
who are fighting in those countries, where drones bomb villages,
where air strikes take out mothers and infants as surely as enemy combatants.
I suggest you examine the teachings of your own canon law.
Your church has long been able to justify the slaughter of innocent
women and children as “collateral damage” in war.
A unique and singular “morality” for a dying
pregnant woman
smacks of hypocrisy and
duplicity, of a double standard,
of sophistry and lies.
Your treats such a person as if she were not
a member of the human race.

For me the dying mother in a failed pregnancy is
a member of the human race. She is not something
set apart from it, to be told that she is no better than
a sacrificial animal who must die with her dying fetus
because it cannot be saved.

She is part of your church as surely as any man.
There is no excuse for establishing a rigid standard
that applies to her alone.

I suggest you write to Rome with your concerns.
If you believe that the killing of her dying fetus was
immoral, you should probably be asking for a new revision of
canon law to enshrine that principle for all,
not just for her.

Forgive me if I sound impatient. I do not mean to be.
I am trying to understand how you and your church could single
out such a woman for a unique standard, and I simply cannot
understand how you can do it.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:05 PM (EST):

Joanie, apparently you don’t understand
what your church teaches.
Innocent women and children are killed by the thousands
in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They are not armed soldiers.
Yet Catholics pray at Mass for the Catholic soldiers in our volunteer armies
who are fighting in those countries, where drones bomb villages,
where air strikes take out mothers and infants as surely as enemy combatants.

I suggest you examine the teachings of your own canon law.
Your church has long been able to justify the slaughter of innocent
women and children as “collateral damage” in war.
A unique and singular “morality” for a dying
pregnant woman
smacks of hypocrisy and
duplicity, of a double standard,
of sophistry and lies.
Your treats such a person as if she were not
a member of the human race.

For me the dying mother in a failed pregnancy is
a member of the human race. She is not something
set apart from it, to be told that she is no better than
a sacrificial animal who must die with her dying fetus
because it cannot be saved.

She is part of your church as surely as any man.
There is no excuse for establishing a rigid standard
that applies to her alone.

I suggest you write to Rome with your concerns.
If you believe that the killing of her dying fetus was
immoral, you should probably be asking for a new revision of
canon law to enshrine that principle for all,
not just for her.

Forgive me if I sound impatient. I do not mean to be.
I am trying to understand how you and your church could single
out such a woman for a unique standard, and I simply cannot
understand how you can do it.

Posted by joanie on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:52 PM (EST):

Well Anne by your own criteria then what happened in the hospital is culpably much worse. An unborn baby is completely innocent, a soul without ever having lived at all and sinless. I don’t think many would like the Church to adopt your reasoning which is that an innocent life is comparable to a criminal intruding on one’s home or even a trained, armed soldier fighting in combat.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:23 PM (EST):

Anne,

Well said. We agree on much, it seems, that disturbs some others here. My compassion and prayers are for the woman who’s life was saved, for Sister McBride, for the woman’s family, for the doctors and nurses who performed the abortion to save the pregnant woman’s life, for the others (along with Sister McBride) who served on the ethics committee and wrestled with the moral issues and, yes, for the unborn child who’s soul, I believe, is now with God.

I wish you all blessings this Christmas season when we prepare, in just two days, to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace.

May God bless you and keep you this season and always.

Robert George

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:35 PM (EST):

If the Catholics here are sincere, and it seems they are,
in questioning the “morality” of saving a dying mother’s life
in a reproductive crises, I suggest they start talking to
their church. I think they have much to ask about regarding the
following:
1)American Catholic soldiers going into volunteer armies
to serve in foreign wars which involve massive civilian casualties.
2)Governors who exact the ultimate penalty in their states
through capital punishment,
3)Canonized saints like Thomas More who burnt five heretics
alive, during his years of power under Henry VIII.

Clearly your own church does not hold that it is morally
impossible to defend one’s life or one’s country, or even
apparently one’s church by “killing” another person.

It is time for you to talk to your own canon lawyers
about these issues.

Applying a pure and stringent code to a dying pregnant woman,
that is completely out of keeping with the codes you apply to others,
is not a morally convincing option.

Until you bring some consistency to canon law
and Church teachings on the matter,
your ruthless application of a separate morality
for pregnant women will continue to come across
as persecutory and hypocritical.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:31 PM (EST):

Carl, Thank you for your kind words. I had actually prepared a reflection response on Veritatis Splendor in one of these windows and decided that it was too long winded. I then copied it to notepad and was going to post it, complete with quotations for those who have no idea what you and I are taking about <grin>, but I think that truly would be a topic hijack.

For those who have no idea what Carl is so concerned about in my statements, or why he challenges me, or what in God’s name it has to do with the original situation at St. Joseph’s Hospital, the long answer could literally take a book and the short answer is EVERYTHING.

In fact, how one views The Magisterium, that is “The Teaching Authority of The Church” actually affects how one approaches a number of contenious moral issues from hunan sexuality to politics to the death penalty and beyond.

Posted by Abscissio on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:25 PM (EST):

Father Robert George, my views on the hot-button abortion issue are quite complex. Let’s just say that I have problems with both sides of the issue.

However, I am not Catholic, as you know, but I would like to weigh in on your request for agreement. I would not call it a “horrific act,” but a horrific moral dilemma. I would have arrived at the same decision as the Ethics Committee, but it would not have been one that I came to easily or could shrug off and move to the next case. The entire situation would haunt me for a lifetime. As it is, looking in from the outside, I will always remember the circumstances here and feel the anguish of all the participants. This clearly illustrates to me how very difficult it can be to be human.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:14 PM (EST):

Let’s take a breath and jump back here a minute. Some of the cross conversations, including mine with Carl, probably would not be taking place if NCR had a way to post emails or to have messages sent to email through a link.

The OTHER problem with these type of conversations online is that we’re all sitting in our own spaces typing on our smartphones or computers and, unlike face-to-face conversations, it’s easy to get caught up in our own writings—especially on hot topics like this one (I mean it’s “abortion”—what topic, except perhaps homosexuality or child abuse by clergy can stir up such incredibly strong reactions, especially among Catholics.)

Can at least the Catholics among us agree that the killing of the unborn child to save the mother’s life in this specific situation was a horrific act and that we can all be thankful that we were not personally faced with the horrible choices that faced this mother’s family, her doctors and the hospital ethics committee?

Robert George

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:59 PM (EST):

Dear Fr. George, Anne, et al.

I pray that someday this “conservative” / “non-conservative” divide may somehow be healed. I also pray that charity might increasingly be the atmosphere which makes this possible - though certainly charity is not inonsistent with rolling up our sleves and being positively honest about our fundamental differences :>). May nothing but God’s deepest desire be achieved in one and all. Happy and blessed Advent!

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:42 PM (EST):

Dear Carl, Anne and Everyone Else,

Thank you for your comments. One of the difficulties with communication over old style electronic bulletin board systems (like the old **Catholic Information Network** using Convene software), email lists, or discussion areas on blogs like this one is that each of us communicate in an isolated vacuum and what any of us write might be misunderstood because either we did not write clearly or that what we write is outside of the context that we might know if we knew each other as whole individuals rather than isolated postings.

Given that we are working within these practical and technological limitations, I would bet that, in the real world, Anne and I would find much common ground on many issues of faith since we apparently are strongly influenced by, and admire, many of the same voices within the Catholic faith community. And within the limited confines of this technology and topic, we apparently hold similar or complimentary views.

Carl, with you and many others, I see the hand of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, continuing to conserve the truth in both doctrina and praxis over 2000 years. This continuity continues in spite of the frailty, corruptibility and sinfulness of we humans—including those in Church leadership. [Romans 3:23] I thought I made that clear in an earlier post. My apologies if I did not.

Carl, you asked I address Veritatis Splendor and The Magistium in light of my comments here—and you challenged that as a Priest, I have an obligation to do so.

I did not really want to delve off the topic of the situation at the hospital, which was the topic of this blog, into a lengthy discussion of theories involving moral theology, teaching authority of The Church, etc. but I suppose that it might help some outside The Faithful understand what appears to be a real divide amongst Catholics and certainly might help some who PROFESS themselves as “practicing Catholics” understand better why there is such vehemence on each side—and why the issue of the nature of the Church’s authority and how moral reasoning is developed (beyond the horrific abortion of an unborn child by a specific, Catholic-identified hospital) is so important. If I did not believe it so, I would not take this time to respond, especially in this busy season.

I am also aware that if one “writes a book” in this forums, many will tune out.

Posted by joanie on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:26 PM (EST):

Carolyn,
At this point they seem to choose to merely ignore what we have raised and are having a conversation amongst themselves—see for yourself! It has been going on for many posts now. It is not a debate but a hijack when they won’t even discuss the points but keep repeating things like a mantra. They repeat but ignore the arguments articulated…sort of like what the hospital itself has been doing for many years now. I know there are many points that I and others have raised here which have been left dangling, why is that? It seems like the debating technique for some is obfuscation. Now Fr. Robert George (what diocese is he from?) is just name dropping his favorite authors. It is no longer a debate. I stand by “hijack”.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:22 PM (EST):

Fr. Robert George,

Thank you for your charitable response. I appreciate the insight into your background and academic pedigree. You wrote the following:

“Other Catholic theologians who have strongly shaped who I am as a Christian, as a priest, how I view the ultimate nature of reality and of The Church include Baum, Congar, Schillebeeckx, Küng, and Chenu and, from The University of Chicago Divinity School, the great Protestant theologian Langdon Brown Gilkey.”

It is wonderful that your training is diverse, but I wonder what role the Magisterium of the Church has played in your formation? Why have you chosen these particular voices to form your “view of the ultimate nature of reality and of the Church’ as opposed to others? I mean the first question when approaching such sweeping topics as “reality” or the “nature of The Church” seems to entail a consideration of the authority of the voices which one chooses to pay attention to, no? The central claim of the Catholic Magisterium is that she has received a gift from Christ to speak – under specific conditions – with the authority of Christ Himself to matters of faith and morals. This is a watershed issue. None of the theologians you mention make any such claim – even though some, like Congar, affirm the Magisterium’s teaching charism. The way one answers this question affects everything else about one’s theology and sacramental service in the Church. It’s the difference between understanding theology as a service to the Church, whose shepards are guided in truth by the Holy Spirit, versus a theology and praxis predisposed to sit in judgment of the teaching of those shepards – even though some of are (and have been) manifestly rife with sin. It’s the difference between a de Lubac and a Kung. Once one have taken the fundamental stance that the Magisterium does not have the capacity to speak with Christ’s voice, then it no longer makes much sense to ask “what does the Church say” about an issue before pursuing theological/moral questions. In a real way, it amounts to elevating one’s own opinion as the final arbiter in things theological and moral. Even though one gathers a host of theologians around the procurement of one’s formation, it is still the individual who chooses the attendees at this gathering. It reminds me of the old adage: “when I submit so long as I agree, the one to whom I submit is really me”.

And in this regard your educational and occupation diversity cannot substitute for a cogent defense of your position. So when you write:

“This diversity has allowed me to embrace a “bigger picture” philosophy rather than being wedded to a more parochial view held by some of the Faithful.”

I cannot help but understand this as something of a smokescreen. Yes, the infamous “bigger picture”, enlightened philosophy juxtaposed against the unfortunate parochial, small minded, trust of the faithful – whom you care for pastorally. Yet, until you defend such an enlightened vision over against the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, (which has a special historic facility for burying her more “enlightened” undertakers); such comments amount to mere table pounding – however gently they are delivered. From a historic point of view, it could just as easily be argued that your enlightened approach to reality and the Church are both parochial and provincial when weighed against the trans-historical staying-power of the Catholic Magisterium. I could list my academic and occupational pedigree as well, but what would that have to do with addressing the content of the issues at hand? I will merely indicate that I spent many years as a radical Kantian skeptic wandering the wasteland of modern continental and analytic philosophy with a most antithetical disposition to revealed theism. I say this only to point out that not all of your brothers and sisters who remain faithful to the Magisterium have arrived at that intellectual stance through a parochial, provincial, approach to the Catholic Church. Eyes wide open here.

You wrote:

“but I think I would have voted for a similar position as did Saint Joseph’s Hospital’s Ethics Committee regardless of the feelings or position of the local Ordinary.”

But to be precise, the position you have been advancing is not simply that one might disregard the position of one’s local Ordinary; but that one may, by an appeal to “conscience”, disregard a KNOWN objective moral law. Perhaps the Ordinary has his facts wrong, and, therefore, his evaluation of the moral species of these sad events is incorrect. There is clearly no problem entertaining disagreement with your Ordinary on this level. But if you say that the Ordinary has correctly judged the moral species of the events in question according to the objective moral law as explicated by the Magisterium of the Church (not just your Ordinary); yet, nonetheless, you would still advocate that same action: then you are advancing the position which you have in fact advanced: namely, that your conscience constitutes a higher authority in moral actions than the deliverances of the objective moral order.

Again, I respectfully draw attention to the fact that your responses, so far, have failed to engage the concerns I have raised in any substantive form. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor speaks directly against your position on the role of conscience and circumstances, as does the pontificate of Benedict the XVI, and the trail of Magisterial teaching which precede both Pontiffs. Moreover, your support of the view that conscience may validly trump KNOW moral law, is a direct affirmation of the principle that the ends may sometimes justify the means – which is contrary to Catholic Magisterial teaching. Finally, such an elevation of the rights of conscience over the deliverances of the moral law; constitutes the ethical DNA out of which relativism in morals is born. These are the concerns I have voiced, which remain unanswered. I am open to being corrected as to any misrepresentation I have made of your views, as well as where my concerns go wrong. Yet, I suspect that in the end, your approach to the Church, and that of my generation may remain at odds on such fundamental issues because we apparently view the Church differently. For you:

“the hierarchy, including those in my own community, have lost much of their authority and certainly much of my respect for the disgraceful way the whole child sexual abuse situation was handled and sometimes continues to be handled.”

A tragic reality which seems to have bled over into a certain theological diffidence with regard to the Church’s Magisterial teaching. For me, though I largely agree with your sentiments, the reality of sin and mismanagement in the Church both now and in the past (which frankly has been even worse at times); has not resulted in a loss of faith in the ability of Christ to protect the Magisterium from error in matters of faith and morals. Indeed, as a child of modernity, I am a Catholic precisely because that claim seems credible among a wasteland of undifferentiated opinion; whether popular, academic, or otherwise.

In the Peace of Christ,

Carl

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:07 PM (EST):

joanie,

I don’t think it is fair to say that Anne has hijacked the conversation. No one is forced to be here but I hope that all our welcome to have a conversation. And while I supported much of what she has said, I neither hate the Church nor women. And it is possible that there are readers who are mulling this over who find this helpful. As for the repetitiveness, there’s plenty of it on all sides.

And Jeff, the final soultion. Really?

Peace,
CKH

Posted by steve on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:43 PM (EST):

As my old mother, God rest her soul, used to say: If wishes were horses than beggars would ride!

Ann, 67,Abscissio, Father George Robert; even the Nazi’s praised each other for the reasonableness of their “final solution”. Your “reasonableness” shatters upon the Natural Law. Why do you think that the modern culture has even gone to the extent of re-crafting the hippocratic oath so as to allow for self-justification and clear a path for more “reasonable application of medicine”.

You people are the faces of moral relativisism at its worst….

Oh ! and lets stand beside the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter as bolstering witnesses to our “new truth”.
Thomas a’ Kempis stated it so simply, so long ago: There are only two ways in life; the way of darkness and the way of light. Which path are you choosing?
The church requires us to properly educate and form our consciences, so that we can make proper decisions. We rely on the Bishops and the Magisterium to provideus with the proper tools and direction. This is why the evil of communism/marxism/socialism/facism and all of the ism’s turn to attack and destroy the only force for moral truth in the world. The Truth of Christ is the truest truth in the world. While many times the people of the church, human failings and all, will many times fall, we can come back to the truth of Christ.

Posted by Jeff Tan on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:38 PM (EST):

Strange.. one would think that Dianne’s post a few days ago about Dr. Zwicke would be extremely relevant to this discussion.

http://www.wisn.com/health/17994163/detail.html

Dr. Zwicke has been able to keep all 40 (45?) of her pregnant patients with pulmonary hypertension, without requiring an abortion of the child. Gives a lot of weight to the bishop’s position on that particular case.

The silence about Dr. Zwicke’s work (as early as 2008!) is quite telling.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:35 PM (EST):

Anne…

I don’t know how I forgot to mention Walter Casper. He’s another theologian than I admire greatly ever since I first studied his work.

Robert George

Posted by joanie on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:48 AM (EST):

I am curious as to whether any minds have been changed on the tragic situation of the poor mother since Anne’s hijacking of the comments here. Because the ones who argue in support of Anne are all incredibly hostile to the Church to begin with and it seems that they are not arguing from a position of care for young mothers but in fact to re-affirm what they have already convinced in themselves. Anne just feels compelled to keep repeating herself but if you look at her posts in the beginning she assured us that this was not about abortion and now she is saying that it is about the instance that took a child’s life. But that is not what the Bishop is saying, at all so the proportion of hostility expressed by some here against the bishops and the Church in general does not match the reality of the situation at hand. Over decades it seems the hospital has made a marketing decision to reap billions of dollars and at the same time go its own way with respect to whether it is Catholic or not. The Bishop is merely concluded years of quiet patient negotiation with the hospital just to permit the diocese to verify that it is complying with Catholic teaching, nothing more, which is really quite reasonable. It is the hospital which has refused even this. If Anne and others are convinced that Catholic teaching ought to be changed to permit this particular instance of directly taking a young life, that is one thing, but it still doesn’t convince in the end that the hospital for decades now has been acting in good faith with respect to attempting to uphold Catholic teaching.

At any rate, you are all dreaming if you believe that even Rahner, Kung, and Schillebeeckx interpret Christianity as justifying the direct taking of an innocent life. I don’t doubt that they also might be fellow protesters on the path of dissenting from overall Church hierarchy and authority.

Even secular hospitals comply with hierarchy, authority, governing boards, ethical regulations, etc. etc. etc. all things that this hospital will be engaging in and has engaged in, presumably cheerfully. It is just the thousands year old tradition of fairly flexible governance in the Church that they have jettisoned from their midst.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 11:18 AM (EST):

Anne,

“Carl, I’ve been troubled by your statement on conscience since I read it. Am I understanding you correctly? You really didn’t tell your five children to follow their conscience? How can they possibly live life in a moral way if they do not follow their conscience?”

No more “troubled” than I at your apparent position (and Fr. George’s explicit position), that one can appeal to conscience in order to ignore objective moral law. I have taught my children that they must always follow their conscience. So far so good, as I am sure you agree. However, I also teach them that their conscience is NOT the final arbiter in morals, as you and Fr. Robert George seem to insist upon. Conscience can be mistaken and is in need of correction and formation. It is true that we are responsible to behave according to what we presently KNOW - in conscience - to be the moral truth of a course of action. As I pointed out earlier, and consistent with Catholic Magisterial teaching, Fr. George is partly right. If a person subjectively believes that an act is moral, when in fact it is objectively evil, then one must follow the dictates of conscience since one cannot do the good or avoid the evil he does not know.

But that is not the end of the story is it? The real question (and this is the rub) is whether or not one has the means and obligation to correct a faulty conscience. Human beings have an obligation to seek the truth so far as they can, and (so says the Magisterium of the Church) to conform their conscience accordingly. As I have said twice, conscience has rights because it first has duties. That seems to be the grand difference between you/Fr. George and the Catholic Magisterium. This is THE undeniable sticking point between an entire generation of catholic theologians, priests and nuns and the Magisterium. Is the conscience an ABSOLUTE final authority - capable of overriding the KNOWN objective moral law when one “in conscience” thinks it is appropriate/necessary to do so? That position underwrites moral relativism. If you think it does not, I eagerly await a substantive argument to the contrary.

Fr. George has explicitly put forward the position that “authentic” Catholic teaching entails that even if one KNOWS an act to be an objective moral evil, one’s conscience may still direct one to engage in that act. That is Rahner’s position. That is why he developed the notion of an “existential ethics”. Parallel to his proposed “existential ethics”, he affirms the notion of what he calls traditional “essentialist ethics”; so as to avoid the appearance of support for an unbounded “emancipation” of conscience. Yet, his insistence that the “existential” conscience must have the final word in moral behavior over any normative “essentialist” moral deliverances, effectively neuters any theoretical force that objective essentialist ethics is said to possess. But logic beats a path down the corridors of history, and Rahner’s implicit embrace of the dominance of conscience over law is not lost on his progeny who eventually flesh out its implications explicitly. I think it can be argued that this line of thought, in its various modes of influence, is partly/largely responsible for the abandonment of the confessional.

I hope you can see the dividing line here (even though you certainly will not cross it): either the subjective conscience trumps the objective moral law; or else the objective moral law informs and binds conscience (or the third option is simply to deny that there really is any such thing as an objective moral law in the first place – a step Rahner was unwilling to take). Neither Fr. George’s position, nor Rahner’s represent “authentic” Catholic moral theology as taught by the Magisterium ON THIS CRUCIAL POINT.

You wrote:

“Fr. Robert George, I too greatly admire Rahner and read him all the time. I know of no other theologian who brings me closer to Christ. His theology has the pure honesty of poetry, which is the highest compliment I can pay it regarding its courageous exploration of truth. Rahner writes withe inspiration of one who is anointed. It saddens me to hear people speak of Rahner as though he were disreputable.”

I have not in any way deprecated Karl Rahner’s motives, nor the larger corpus of his work. Nor would I take that view with regard to Kung, Schillebeeckx or others. But neither would I describe him as “one who is anointed” - wow. I hope you will concede that it is possible for well meaning men to write many insightful and inspiring things, while at the same time embracing a grave error on a fundamental issue. Every one of the three theologians just mentioned is clearly aware that their position on the fundamental issue we have been discussing is in direct conflict with the Magisterium.

In fact, it is the final authority of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals which constitutes THE fundamental gap between these particular voices of the academy, and the voice of the successors to Peter and the apostles. Little wonder that both you and Fr. George hold these particular theologians in such high regard, since they join you in the one point of departure which you seem to hold most dear – the absolute right of conscience - irrespective of objective moral norms – to decide the truth in morals in any concrete situation. I wonder where the theological admiration for St. Thomas, de Lubac, Von Balthasar, Avery Dulles or Joesph Ratzinger is? All of these men subordinate their theological speculations to the judgment of the Catholic Magisterium; many of your theological heroes do not – even though much that they say is quite rich.

Neither of you have responded substantively to my comments regarding Veritatis Splendor or the teaching Magisterium of the Church. Anne, you are under no obligation to do so because you are no longer a professing Catholic; but Fr. George, ISTM, ought to have a response to this charge. Rather, dissenting theologians are put forward as the counter balance to Magisterial teaching; as if the two were on an equal epistemic footing. Nor have either one of you put up the least defense against my argument that your position necessarily entails subjectivism and moral relativism. I am no cheerleader for the “old men who run the episcopate”, either now or in their various historic incarnations: there is plenty to criticize! However, despite the presence of unscrupulous clerical naves throughout the centuries; I and many other theologians see the hand of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, continuing to conserve the truth in both doctrina and praxis over 2000 years – both you and Fr. George seem (if I am reading him right) to have abandoned this understanding, at least where fundamental issues of conscience and law are concerned.

You said: “Speculation as to other scenarios, or stories in which the
hospital is lying about the situation, etc., do not seem to
me to be grounded in any kind of real demonstrable truth.”

Why not specualte? I agree with you that I would like to see more of the facts of the case. I believe the Bishop’s people have and as a result, his medical ethicist has expressed skepticism re the hospital’s motives.

Regarding my quoting of Dr. Byrne. In the interview with him he specifically stated that he could not comment on the case we are discussing because she has not his patient. However, he offered his - opinion as an expert in the field = that the child’s presence in these cases is not usually life threatening until the third trimester.

Why are you so intent on not questioning the hospital’s judgment? Not calling them liars, but not being naive either. What would happen to the federal grants the hospital gets if they went hard-line pro-life with no exceptions? Bishop Olmsted has already uncovered their complicity in many other violations of the ERDs.

One thing I would question the Bishop about - and all Bishops - is why have these Catholic hospitals gotten away with violating the ERDs for so long?

Was the mother previously denied treatment after refusing an abortion and thus wound up in the situation with an out of control medical situation? These are questions that anyone serious about Catholic healthcare is legitimately concerned with. I’m not assuming the hospital is lying, but I’m not assuming that their decision to kill the child was based on pure motives either.

Posted by 67 on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 8:56 AM (EST):

Liseux’s comments about hiding dirty deeds is unfortunately so typical of her previous comments, and of course she misses my point completely. I had wondered just when she started painting in the minds of her children this grotesque picture of them sharing a classroom with the corpses of aborted fetuses. Is it when they are 5 years old, or perhaps 8, or maybe as they are about to reach puberty so that they are terrorized into not having sex? It sort of reminds me of the fear instilled into some Muslim children about the Great Satan, or of ever considering changing their religion, for which the punishment - is death.

Looking back on many of the posts I realize that in order to enforce their position regarding the so-called “intrinsic evil” of abortion many of the writers first have to demonize the opposition. If anyone expresses the view, for example, that in exceptional cases, such as in the case in question, there were sound medical grounds for aborting the fetus in order to save the mother who would have died had she attempted to carry the fetus to term, then these people must also support wholesale abortions and the killing of unborn children. It’s either a case of mass murder through abortions unlimited (yes, it’s so easy to then brand them as “intrinsically evil”) or a complete ban on each and every abortion under any circumstances - bar none. The comments from Erin Manning are a case in point when she described the “howling mob” and “the mob for the abortion. The baby you hated so much is dead”. One might describe this as an example of hyperbole on steroids!

Having re-read the posts of Anne Rice, Abscissio, Father George Robert and several others I realize that far from expressing the views of mass killers, they present the voice of reason and logic to a debate where their views are then grossly distorted by those who are so fixed in theirs that any different perspective has to be attacked and condemned as evil.

Maybe I have missed it somewhere, but none of these writers appear to be saying that they support abortion as such. To me they are saying what I personally believe, and that is that there are circumstances in which abortion can be justified, particularly in a case where the mother’s life is at risk. This may be distasteful to most writers on this blog but it actually reflects the views of the majority of people in the world, certainly in my home country, and also in the U.S. and Canada.

As an outsider looking in at the Catholic faith through this website, I would like to conclude by sincerely thanking Anne Rice, Abscissio and Father George Robert for your thoughtful and well reasoned comments. Your views are very similar to those of my own Catholic friends and fellow Christians, and it provides me with the encouragement to continue reading these blogs and making occasional comments. Whatever you do, Ms Rice, please do not change your style of writing as suggested by one post. Your message is always clear and you write beautifully.

Posted by Erin Manning on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:34 AM (EST):

Again, Anne, I have posted only to see your most recent comment. Briefly, then: the principle of double effect cannot apply in a case in which the unborn child is directly killed *and* the “good effect” (e.g., the improved health of the mother) is *caused* by the “bad effect” (e.g., the child’s death via abortion). Double effect can only apply under the following:

a) the act itself must be good (or at least neutral);
b) the good effect of the act is intended; the bad effect is not intended either for its own sake or to bring about the good effect—it is merely tolerated;
c) the good effect outweighs the bad effect

There’s a lot more to it, of course, and plenty of examples. But that’s the basic outline, which I’m sure you know—I list it only as a help to the discussion.

So, let’s look at this situation:

a) the act of directly and intentionally killing a child is neither morally good nor morally neutral.
b) the bad effect (the death of the child) is intended and is in fact being sought as the means to the good effect (improvement in mother’s health).
c) the good effect, the improvement in the mother’s health, is not outweighed by the deliberate killing of her child.

I read in one of the many articles that the hospital ethics board admitted that this was not a double effect situation. The Marquette ethicist’s paper tried to claim that the act was not abortion, but merely removing the sick woman’s placenta (IIRC); however, the woman’s placenta was perfectly healthy with a perfectly healthy baby growing inside, and therefore removing it was indeed an abortion.

The hospital only “saved the life they could save” by directly and intentionally ending the other life, something I find horrific—and something which the Church does not see as even remotely a double-effect situation.

Posted by Erin Manning on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:22 AM (EST):

Anne, I just saw your comment above. I have a feeling that the differences in our modes of expression, and that problem of “hearing” someone else’s tone on the Internet, may be making this communication somewhat difficult.

For my own part—if I may use this as a mere example without meaning any unkindness by it at all—I find that the structure of your posts makes them rather difficult for me to read. They resemble poems at first glance, and I have never been a great reader of poetry.

Getting back to the topic at hand: I believe, as a Catholic, that Christ and His Church are one; the mystical union of the Bridegroom and His spotless Bride is one of the great signs and images we have of the Kingdom that is to come. When the Church speaks, it is the Bridegroom’s words she uses; He is with her as he promised, and will remain so until the end of time.

Bishop Olmsted is not a villain trying to hurt women in crisis pregnancies. He is speaking as a shepherd, reminding his flock that it means something to claim affiliation with the Catholic Church—and what it means does not include abortion, contraception, sterilization, or any of the other numerous societal ills some would like the Church to approve of.

This does not mean that there are not sometimes difficult choices to make—but in this particular difficult choice, the hospital chose to commit an act of grave moral evil. Worse, the pattern of the hospital’s activities in other evil areas left Bishop Olmsted with no other option than to clarify for the faithful that this hospital is not a Catholic one—something not only well within his authority, but tremendously necessary, as this very long thread illustrates to a considerable degree.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:12 AM (EST):

Erin, we’ve been over this again and again.
I support Sr. McBride’s decision and the hospital.
I support their statements. They have explained the
situation in full.
They always seek to save both lives; if they cannot do that,
they save the life they can save.
M.Therese Lysaught’s 24 page reports makes clear fully and
completely what the hospital did and why.
I don’t see how we can make this any clearer.
No, no one has concluded that it was not double effect.
There is a strong vigorous argument that it was double effect.
No one willed the death of the child.
But it does seem that you do will the death of the mother.
I am sympathetic to your wanting to discuss this but I don’t know
how many times it can be explained here.
Sr. McBride saved the life she could save.
This isn’t about abortion on demand, or abortion as birth control,
or abortion for the mental health of the mother, or abortion after
rape, or abortion after incest.
This about a woman who was dying and a fetus that was dying
inside her. The hospital wanted to save both. They couldn’t.
They saved the life that they could save.
Forgive me if I sound impatient, but what exactly is confusing about this?

Posted by Erin Manning on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 5:05 AM (EST):

Anne, do you really share the opinions of those of us here who consider the killing of the unborn child a grave moral evil, a reprehensible act that ought never to have happened?

If you do not—then what? The killing of this child via abortion was a very bad but very necessary evil? I don’t think that’s a terribly logical thing to say, considering that the child’s death was the direct and intentional result of the abortion which the hospital approved.

I am sorry that I do not quite understand the semantic games at work here. A child died. She was killed deliberately via an abortion. Those of you here who are supporting the hospital are supporting their decision to order the killing of this child.

We’ve already concluded that this was not a double-effect situation, yes? We’ve also conceded that we can’t possibly know the whole medical story without the release of the woman’s medical records, yes? So some of you are saying, in effect, that the hospital did something good and righteous and noble by killing a child. There is simply no other conclusion I can draw—and if you have reached a different conclusion, I would like to hear what it could possibly be.

But you are making a bad mistake if you lump me in with the
people who wrote your textbooks. And Karl Rahner should not be
lumped in with them either.

Posted by Erin Manning on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:57 AM (EST):

Carolyn, all due respect, but I don’t think saying what one believes is ever toxic. If I directly called someone participating on this thread “infantile,” that would be different and I would apologize, but surely there is no harm in saying truthfully that I find certain rather outmoded ideas infantile, is there?

Frankly, my experience of those ideas was as a child of the 70s; many religion textbooks I had in parochial school informed me solemnly that Jesus didn’t know who He was. They painted a picture of a confused, dreamy loner who wondered whether His outspoken cousin John might be the Messiah—a man who certainly didn’t know He was God, and who probably didn’t ever figure it out, either. Why, He was as surprised by the Resurrection as anybody! And no, certainly He didn’t mean anything when He called Peter “Rock,” or when He commanded His followers to “Do this in remembrance of Me,” or anything else of that nature—why, Constantine added all that bit as part of his crafty power grab.

Those neo-Arian ideas were not merely false; they were pernicious nonsense that could, unless God prevents it, quite probably lead to the eternal damnation of any number of people of my generation. So if I find the continued paddling in those muddied waters to be “infantile,” I have good reason.

Clearly, I don’t share Abscissio’s notions that women are chattel in the Church’s eye. But I think he has a right to say that he thinks the Church views them this way, if only to help the rest of us come to understand him better. (And if “he” is actually she, I apologize for missing that.)

One of the dangers of over-emotionalizing everything is that pretty soon most speech gets banned as “not nice.” I’m not trying to be mean to anybody. But I’m not really of the school that thinks strong speech is inherently mean, either.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:49 AM (EST):

Abscissio, of course I agree with you.
I could add a book to the many that have been
written about the evolving definition of a woman
in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.
But I find it more effective to discuss things in
more nearly neutral terms.
In other words, though I know perfectly well
that the Church views the woman, traditionally
as the chattel of father, the husband, and the unborn
child, I feel it is more effective not to point this out,
but to discuss the matter in terms of morality and theology
rather than historical context.
But you’re right. I can’t deny it.
Some Catholics do not see this young mother as having any
right to defend her own life against the pregnancy that was
killing her. They do not see her life as equal to other lives.
They see her in a position of moral helplessness because she is
a woman and a mother.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:49 AM (EST):

TheresaEE,

Tired so my response will be short. I want more explanation from the bishop because I think you should have to explain why you condemning someone or an institution. Other people have accused the bishop of terrible things on another blog and I defended him there, or more accurately, I defended his motives.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:46 AM (EST):

Erin, what point is there in responding to your post?
Why don’t you take the time to reread this blog?
No one here thinks it’s “fine” to kill a child.
You know this.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:44 AM (EST):

Abscissio and Erin,

I have never felt like Chattel in the Church and I don’t think the theologians of the last century were infantile. Your language is toxic. It does not meet the Pauline definition of love outlined in Corinthians. If you love the Church, that is the people who make up the body of Christ, please, stop. Or at least before you post or speak, check your language for divisiveness

Peace in Christ,
CKH

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:38 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

Certainly there have been abortions taking place - for thousands of years. I should have clarified that, what I meant was, abortions even to save the mother’s life were not socially acceptable 100 years ago as they are today. Most people would have been horrified at the thought - as they were even in the early part of the 20th century.

Today, it is accepted, and therefore, one might reasonable ask: “Is it really ever ‘necessary” to kill the child to save the mother’s life?”

I have read dozens of statements by pro-life physicians who insist that it is never medically necessary to perform an abortion to save the mother’s life. So, how many abortions done for this purpose are done simply to avoid possible litigation, or because it is “easier” and cheaper?

I think these are valid questions. When you said we should not “assume aweful things about people’s motives,” I’m not sure what you I said which led you to believe I was doing this. If it was in reference to my questions about the motives of the hospital in performing the abortion on this woman, I don’t agree that asking questions is assuming bad motives. I see this as no different from you wanting more explanation from the Bishop. Naturally, I don’t expect the hospital to present their position in anything other than a good light. This doesn’t stop me from having other questions.

Maybe it is because I have spent more than half my life suffering from numerous health problems, and I have had a great deal of experience with doctors, and how they think. And, how they think is NOT outside the box. Nor do they look kindly on colleagues who DO think outside the box. Either you consent to follow the doctor’s prescribed treatment, or you will not be his patient any longer. Good luck finding a doctor who will prescribe a different treatment from the last 25 doctors. If, 30 years from now, it is discovered that that particular treatment was insufficient and even dangerous, too bad for you. So, I think your notion of “consent” is a bit naieve. Consent is given, in many cases, because one has no other choice.

Posted by Erin Manning on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:36 AM (EST):

Anne, my words are not meant to seem unkind. They are meant to be truthful. I believe it is possible to use words to convey the truth instead of to obscure it, you see.

Every one of you who “supports the hospital” supports the hospital’s decision to kill a child, that is, to directly and intentionally take the life of that innocent unborn human child. You can wrap that in all the words you like, but that is what you are supporting; that is what you are cheering; that is what you are glad the hospital did in defiance of the Church. You do believe in this instance that it was fine for the hospital to kill that child. You further believe that it would be fine for hospitals, Catholic or not, to go on killing any children in this or any similar situation. That is what your words of support actually mean, no matter how you multiply them.

Those of you praising Sister McBride have forgotten one little detail (which I admit I didn’t know when this discussion began). Sr. McBride is reconciled with the Church. News reports are cannily vague about how she accomplished that, but it seems clear that Sister must have repented of the evil she did in this instance and sought sacramental reconciliation with the Church—which puts her in a far different category than most of her supporters here; indeed, she sets the example of what one ought to do when the Church informs one that one is not in communion.

As for the nonsense about Jesus opposing religion or not intending to start a Church…well, such infantile and silly views of His Gospel message and ministry don’t interest me, I’m afraid, though I recognize their ghastly and prolonged fascination for certain outdated theologians of the latter half of the last century and their unfortunate devotees.

Posted by Abscissio on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:29 AM (EST):

Ms. Rice, you said, “This issue is truly about the matter of defense,
whether or not a pregnant woman has a moral right to defend herself against a failing pregnancy that is killing her.” I understand your argument, but I see it another way.

The Catholic Church is a patriarchal institution. Women and children are seen as chattel. Chattel do not have rights. They exist to serve men. We see that illustrated in the treatment of Sr. McBride, the mother and even the children in the priest sex abuse scandal. We see it in the issue of ordaining women as priests. We see it in the struggles of nuns against the hierarchy.

How many priests have been excommunicated for their sexual abuse of children? But Bishop Olmsted was so quick to excommunicate Sr. McBride. How many children were ignored when they brought forward their claims of being abused by priests? The world cries out that these children were abused and many wring their hands wondering how this could be possible, but, the simple truth is that these children served the needs of the patriarchs, and they have no rights in the eyes of the church.

To argue that a woman has the moral right to defend herself is reasonable presupposes she has the status to have rights to begin with. I see little evidence of that. A woman cannot be a priest because she, as a woman, is unworthy by nature. A nun cannot follow the directives of the bishops because, I would argue, she is seen as incapable of arriving at a moral decision even with the guidance of the patriarchs. Cheeky that she should think so and let’s rush in to put her in her place.

I think it’s very clear from Bishop Olmsted’s decision that women are to provide their wombs to increase the flock, but, under no circumstances do they have the right to life if their lives are threatened by their pregnancies. Is it the right to defend one’s life we’re talking about here or the very right to life itself? I would argue that the central issue is the latter.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:28 AM (EST):

Carolyn, I agree: Jesus is the center.
I am as obsessed with Him tonight as I ever was,
reading the Gospels over and over, meditating on His
words, seeking to find Him in every person I meet,
seeking to find Him in myself, to find some way with his guidance to be
a good person, to love all in His name, and with a whole heart.
I wrote two novels about Jesus Christ, and that work
was the joy of my life. My life is consecrated to Him.
I fail all the time, but as a priest once told me, you have
to consecrate your brokenness to him too.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:21 AM (EST):

Anne,

Thanks for indulging me on the organized religion bit for what it is worth, I feel better. I don’t agree with everything you said but I can live with it. I think :).

I agree with you that Jesus challenged organized religion. I interpreted your original post to be saying that this was his primary mission. I am perfectly comfortable with putting challening organized religion somewhere on the list of Jesus’s activities as long as the redemption of humanity takes center stage.

Also, I think it is quite clear in the gospels that the apostles behaved liked people who thought the end was near but the end did not come and organized religion is the inevitable outcome of Jesus’s long delay:).

What all the quotes you gave about Jesus says to me is that Jesus is the center. Jesus is the way. I am concerned that many Catholics spend much time praising the bishops, quoting canon law, and obsessing over the institutional church and not nearly enough quoting the words of Jesus and just being good “jesus freaks!”

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:10 AM (EST):

Fr. Robert George, I too greatly admire Rahner and read him all
the time. I know of no other theologian who brings me closer to
Christ. His theology has the pure honesty of poetry, which is
the highest compliment I can pay it regarding its courageous exploration
of truth. Rahner writes withe inspiration of one who is anointed.
It saddens me to hear people speak of Rahner as though he were disreputable.
When I first heard this kind of criticism, I wrote to a friend who is high placed in
the Magisterium.
“Is Rahner not in the fold?” I asked.
He wrote back that Rahner was most certainly in the fold.
That was plenty good enough for me during those years.
And that friend is still very high placed in the Magisterium.
Now I would not feel compelled to ask anyone.
The truth and brilliance of Rahner’s work is undeniable.

I also treasure the brilliant work of Walter Casper.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:04 AM (EST):

Carolyn, I understand. I think it’s very important how we
view Jesus in relationship to organized religion.
But I don’t think we really should go into a lengthy
discussion here. However:
Digression:
As I have read the gospels, when jesus stands in the Temple
precincts and announces “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,”
he is directly challenging the establishment religion of his time..
In the Gospel of Matthew when he tells us to go into our rooms,
close the door and pray to the father in secret, he is doing the same
thing.
I think the Gospel of John in particular makes clear that he was
killed by the Temple authorities because they thought he was
misleading the people. Organized religion came down on Jesus
and had him crucified.
When He says, “This is my body; this is my blood,” this is utterly radical
for no Second Temple Jew was allowed to ingest blood.
He was blatantly defying the entire system and offering Himself
as the truth.
He told the crowds, early in the Gospel of John, that if
they did not eat his flesh and drink his blood, they would not
be saved.
This deeply confused and discouraged many, as the gospel tells us.
At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, he tells his apostles to
go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost. He says nothing about organized religion.
Organized religion came later, much later.
The Apostles teaching in the Temple after Jesus’ death
taught Jesus Christ, that He was the Way.
Religion is something that built up much later.
Christ’ message is totally radical, totally anti establishment.
This is why he said, “I have come not to bring peace but a sword.”
And he then described how his teachings would divide families.
Always with Christ it had to do with personal conversion, a person
leaving family and coming to follow Him.
The power of the concept of the Eucharist derives from the fact that
the Eucharist is Christ himself. Not a religion.
I don’t know how else to explain it.
But I am not the only person, who sees Jesus in this way, or
extrapolates on His teachings in this way.
Repeatedly Paul speaks of Jesus as the one in whom we are saved,
in whom we are reborn, in whom we have life.
Jesus offers personal transformation and total commitment to Him,
not to a religion. He has come to replace religion.
“Believe in me” is his invitation over and over again to all.
Never does he speak of anything pertaining to organized religion.
Never does he talk of any priesthood or anointed priesthood or
anything of the kind.
He offers His body and blood to all, to the crowds in John’s gospel,
and later to all who are at the Last Supper including Judas.
He makes clear in conversations with the Pharisees and with his
followers that he does not hold with what they teach on purification
rituals or what is to be eaten. He defies the Sabbath.
He is a complete rebel from start to finish.
He does not hesitate to add to or change the Law of Moses.
That’s how I read it.
He left no instructions about organizing any church,
only mystical statements about how when two or more of us
are gathered in His name He is with us.
He indicated that he believed the world would end within one
generation.
Paul who claimed to speak for him also expected the end of the world
within a very short time.
Jesus seems not to have been concerned at all with an organized religion.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:03 AM (EST):

Dear Carl,

Prayers and chores finished and I’ve just finished reviewing notes for what my Christmas Eve homily. I’ve taken so long to respond to you not because I am avoiding the challenge but because I did not want to go way off topic taking everyone with us as this is a public forum.

I will respond, however I want to do so thoughtfully and with careful reflection so as not to be misunderstood which sometimes happens in email forums and public discussion groups in ways that simply do not happen in face-to-face real world conversations.

In your first response to me you noticed similarities between my position and that of Karl Rahner’s existential ethics. That’s not surprising since I am profoundly affected by the writings and teachings of Karl Rahner, who I consider one of the most brilliant theologians of his time (and perhaps all time) and who was instrumental in much of Vatican Council II. Other Catholic theologians who have strongly shaped who I am as a Christian, as a priest, how I view the ultimate nature of reality and of The Church include Baum, Congar, Schillebeeckx, Küng, and Chenu and, from The University of Chicago Divinity School, the great Protestant theologian Langdon Brown Gilkey. I consider Concilium to be one of the finest Catholic theological review journals and I don’t particularly care for Communio.

Hard as it is for me to believe, it’s been nearly 30 years since my Master of Divinity and longer than that since my initial formation, which gives everyone a time frame.

I’ve earned advanced theology degrees at both Roman Catholic related institutions and degrees in other fields at either Catholic, secular or Protestant institutions. This diversity has allowed me to embrace a “bigger picture” philosophy rather than being wedded to a more parochial view held by some of the Faithful.

I’ve been and continue to be, currently, a parish priest. But I’ve also been a university and graduate school professor (until several years ago) as well as serving in hospital administration I thankfully was never consulted or involved directly in such a sad case as the one which caused this uproar, but I think I would have voted for a similar position as did Saint Joseph’s Hospital’s Ethics Committee regardless of the feelings or position of the local Ordinary.

For me, the hierarchy, including those in my own community, have lost much of their authority and certainly much of my respect for the disgraceful way the whole child sexual abuse situation was handled and sometimes continues to be handled.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 4:03 AM (EST):

TheresaEE,

I think it is geberally a good idea not to assume aweful things about people’s motives. Only God can judge the heart. The hospital says that they thought the mother would die with the child and I believe that that is what they thought. I am ok with being naive over being judgemental.

Second, I find abortion quite horrifying, and I disagree with you that no one would have thought these things 100 years. Certainly, there were abortions hundred years ago and given the other evil things people did hundred years ago, like taking their kids to a picnic to watch a nigger get lynched, I am not so sure that any age has a monopoly on evil.

Third, my way of address your question about killing the mother to save the child was to say that only one of those human beings is capable of giving her consent. If the mother censents to a high-risk c-section to protect her child, I think the doctor should honor her wishes. But the doctor cannot tie her down and subject her to a c-section without that consent.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:47 AM (EST):

Anne,

I will make one more comment about Jesus and institutionalized religion and then I will drop it unless you wish to discuss it. I think if you think Jesus’s mission was to oppose organized religion, then that clearly affects how you have a discussion on how the bishops make decisions so I think it is very relevant to this conversation. In fact, as you have pointed out, much that has been said is repetitive. That’s probably because we are talking about secondary issues. This seems to me like the kind of issues that is at the real root of the discussion. What you consider transparently obvious is clearly not the case for million of believers. In fact, I think yours is a minority view so perhaps, it is not so transparent.

And you are likewise free to think of Jesus as you see fit but it not a little deal. I am willing to disagree with people about many things but “who do you say that I am?” is key. I have protestants friends, who can’t stand the pope, bishops, marian devotion, and who I disagree with on much but I call them my brothers and sisters in Christ because we can answer the question, “who do you say that I am?” in the same way. There does come a point where we are using the same word—“Jesus” but our conception is so different that we are not talking about the same person. Don’t know if that is what we have here but it is relevant to me.

Peace in Christ,
CKH

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:46 AM (EST):

The New York Times has just come out with an editorial,
which will appear in tomorrow’s paper, that supports Sr. McBride
and the Hospital.
This is great news. This news will be heard round the world.
Truly, this story is only just beginning.
This is a great day for women’s rights.
And a great day for those who believe that a woman
has a moral right to defend her very life against a failed
and fatal pregnancy.
I am confident that, some day, Catholic teaching will
fully incorporate these ideas.
Revisions of Canon Law and Catholic teaching take time.
But the church is endlessly reforming itself.

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:42 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

While I certainly agree there is no moral reason for considering Medicaid payments, this is, in fact, done all the time. I have personal experience in that area.

Which is one reason why I suspect that this mother was offered abortion, by her doctor, at only 7.5 weeks, and when she declined, apparently NO OTHER treatment was offered to her. Abortion is cheaper, and easier, than an extended treatment plan that may have even included an extended hospital stay.

How much of her “treatment” (or, non-treatment), was also the result of bias towards those who have more than 2 children? Is it possible there was an attidude of “Well, she already has 4 little burdens on our tax dollars - why bring another one into the world.”

I think these are legitimate questions.

As far as your assertion that the child would die before the doctor intervened, I don’t think that is the case at all. Surgery (such as a C-section), might kill the mother, but save the baby. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that, by admitting the principle that it is licit to kill one to save the other, a doctor might decide to do just that.

I realize this scenario seems a bit far-fetched, but the point is, I am convinced that that ONLY reason we are even discussing the licitness of killing the unborn child is because:

1. We have lost our moral horror over abortion. 100 years ago, it would have been inconceivable to a doctor to kill a child to save the mother. Today, some suggest it is the MORAL thing to do!

2. We do not value the life of the child as equal to the mother. People have said as much - this woman had 4 children. Her life has more value than the unborn baby. For the Catholic Church, both have equal value, because our worth and dignity are not functions of what we do, or have, but is the result of our being made in God’s image.

As a result, I insist that it is never licit to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being - and the unborn is, and always will be, innocent.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:35 AM (EST):

I have heard that the Catholic theologian,
Dr. Bernard Haring CSSR did work out an argument in
support of a mother defending her life in a
a threatening pregnancy but I have been unable to find
the work online.

Some presenting absolute arguments here do not seem
to be aware of the Catholic arguments that support killing
in various circumstances.

We all know American Catholic soldiers join volunteer
armed services to participate in foreign wars that involve
massive deaths of women and children; and we know
as well that people defend themselves against all kinds of
aggressors with the support of the Church.

I argue that applying a pure absolute and unbending
moral law, “Thou Shalt Not Murder,” to a
dying pregnant woman is hypocritical and unfair.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:31 AM (EST):

Caroyln, I think your last post is one of the best we’ve had here.
This issue is truly about the matter of defense,
whether or not a pregnant woman has a moral right
to defend herself against a failing pregnancy that is killing her.
And I do think many who have responded to this case,
feel the mother should have “sacrificed” herself to die with
her child, which raises a whole range of moral questions.
I’ve said before and I say it again: a church that can make complex
nuanced arguments to support Catholic soldiers fighting in wars
where thousands of innocent persons die in “collateral damage”
can work out a sound, moral argument to support a mother
in defending her life against a pregnancy that is killing her.
The church just hasn’t done it yet.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:25 AM (EST):

First, I would say that there are no moral reasons to consider the medicaid/insurance payments in the equation. I think they need to be morally off the table.

Second, I don’t think the child can properly be described as an unjust aggressor but certainly a child can be a threat. In third world country, child birth still kills women. You can defend yourself against a threat even if that threat is not an unjust aggressor, like a mentally ill person who cannot be properly be called unjust. In this case, the mentally ill person is innocent but applying the necessary force to protect oneself may unfortunately lead to his death while he is innocent.

Third, I don’t think doctors should be making these choices but patients. It is unethical for doctors to decide how to proceed without the consent of a patient capable of consenting in which case that is automatically the mother. Furthermore, for there to be a case where one would have to kill the mother to save the child, one would have to somehow show that the mother is a threat to the child. If that is the case, the child would naturally die before the doctor could intervene since the child depends on the mother’s body for survival. This goes back to recognizing the unique bodily relationship between the mother and child. Only one of these persons can consent, and only one of these persons is giving instead of taking, only one of them is dependent on the other for survival. Only one of them could possibly make a claim of self-defense.

As with all self-defense, measures taken should be no more than which is necessary to defend one’s life. Of course, one does not have to act in self-defense. One can decide to be sacrificial, which I think is holy. But one does have the right to act in self-defense.

Peace,
CKH

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:24 AM (EST):

Carl, I’ve been troubled by your statement on conscience since I read it.
Am I understanding you correctly? You really didn’t tell your five children
to follow their conscience?
How can they possibly live life in a moral way if they do not follow their conscience?

Posted by Abscissio on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:17 AM (EST):

No, it isn’t appropriate, but it interests me. Couldn’t resist the off-topic comment, particularly since it was the subject of nitpicking.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:17 AM (EST):

Natural Family Planning Teacher, I am satisfied with the
integrity of the hospital’s statements on this case, and
with the integrity of M. Therese Lysaught’s report on the
case.
Speculation as to other scenarios, or stories in which the
hospital is lying about the situation, etc., do not seem to
me to be grounded in any kind of real demonstrable truth.
If new facts are revealed, then of course we can reappraise the
whole situation.
Dr. Byrne, as far as I can tell, never even laid eyes on this patient
and knows nothing of the hospital records on the case.
I see no reason why he should be offering an opinion here at
all.
Again, if we are going to impugn the hospital, if we are going to
call everybody involved in this at the hospital a liar, that changes
the situation so dramatically that really there is little we can discuss.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:12 AM (EST):

I do not think it is appropriate here to go into a lengthy
discussion about whether or not Christ opposed Organized Religion.
I think it is transparently obvious that he did at every turn,
but my personal library includes hundreds of books
on the gospels, and they are filled with thousands of interpretations
or ways of reading the gospels.
So if you don’t feel he came to oppose organized religion, that’s fine with me.
I am content with my reading of the Gospels that he certainly did.
But there are many ways to respond to Jesus Christ.

TO ANNE RICE: Physicians have become used to referring for abortions in what they consider “high risk” pregnancies. The doctor’s risk of being sued for aborting is much much lower than the risk of being sued for a bad outcome. Father Erich, the Phoenix archdiocesan medical ethicist,speculated that the operation was conducted to reduce the hospital’s or doctors’ exposure to a lawsuit and claimed thatit was unnecessary medically. “The mortality rate for hypertension is very, very low”, he said.

As a sidewalk counselor in Colorado, I once had a woman tell me her doctor had sent her to Planned Parenthood because he wouldn’t perform a fourth C-section on her. It was too risky in his opinion and he sent her to PP. I called a friend who had five C-Sections and handed the cell phone to the mother, and after their discussion, she decided to “risk” another C-Section. She found a doctor who would “risk it” and I went to the hospital with her for the birth. Totally fine.

This experience opened my eyes to what was going on in the medical community. Abortion is far less risky to them than what they deem “high risk” pregnancies. They are using abortion to reduce their risk of malpractice. When they are saying that a woman’s life is in danger and estimating percentages of risk, you have to be aware of the fact that abortion is not murder to most of them. It’s a procedure. Maybe not so much for doctors in Catholic hospitals (although they don’t have to be Catholic to be employed there - our local Catholic hospital in Durango, CO has a Planned Parenthood abortionist on staff). I’m sure the insurance companies and medical boards and government are in on pressuring doctors to perform or refer for abortions.

OBs can barely make it with the level of MP insurance they must carry. Still, Catholic Hospitals can’t bend to this pressure. They must be different. Read what Dr. Byrne, an expert in treating pregnant women with hypertension, says in an interview with LifeSite News: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/may/10051712.
His experience shows that the problems come in the third trimester and that “The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller,” which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mother’s life is in immediate danger.” The pro-life approach would be to treat the mother and deliver the baby as soon as viable.
This is not a question of being mean to women or out of date. It’s a question of Catholic ethics putting pressure on doctors to stretch themselves to provide the best medicine in the service of both lives.

Anne, I applaud your return to a belief in God and loved “Christ The Lord”. You came back to a Church that had other dimensions besides the personal one. The Church should be at the forefront of the fight against the eugneic Brave New World we’ve slipped into. Only with Bishops such as Olmsted will we be able to combat the madness.

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 3:04 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

Thank you for that clarification. I can understand that there IS a difference in the relationship between mother/child and indigent/heart recipient.

That being said, I will assert that the unborn child can in no way be construed as an unjust aggressor, the killing of which would consitute an act of self-defense.

In addition, the question relates to the larger principle of “is it ever licit to kill an innocent human being to save the life of another?” If we admit that there are instances where this is licit, whom is it licit to kill, and then where do we draw the line?

Let’s turn this situation around a bit to see if I can illustrate my point. Most of what I have read regarding PH states that the real problems occur as the baby gets bigger - like in the third trimester. Its size and weight put stress on the mother’s CV system. I have known women who developed PH in their third trimester, and who have refused abortion as a treatment option (none died, or lost their babies).

Looking at it from the POV of the business end of health care, insurance reimbursements, etc, is it possible that we might be faced with a situation where the doctor decides to kill the mother to save the life of the third trimester baby?

The mother is ill. She is on Medicaid. She can potentially cost the government millions of dollars in health care over the course of her life. Her baby, OTOH, is perfectly healthy, yet is dying for lack of O2 from the mother’s overly stressed CV system.

If we admit the principle that we can kill one to save another, would it be licit to kill the mother to save the baby?

Posted by Abscissio on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:42 AM (EST):

Ms. Rice, you said “Our Lord died because he opposed organized religion.” I couldn’t agree with you more. I have a particular fascination with the Didache, an apostolic text that was suppressed but later found. I can see why that would be convenient to some. I think Christ never intended to create an organized religion based upon this portion:

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:36 AM (EST):

With all due respect, patients die in hospitals all the time because treatments fail. Why should preventing the death of a pregnant woman (and ONLY a pregnant woman) be justification for directly killing another innocent and defenseless human being?

There are two reasons. First, in this particular case, the defenseless human is threatening the other person’s health. Someone gave an example about killing someone else to get the heart to safe the life of someone else. Well, in that case, there is no relationship between these two bodies. One is not threating the life of the other. And before you jump on me. I am going to say it again. I love babies. I have done much pro-life work, giving time and money. But a preganacy is one of those cases where one life can threaten another. That is becoming increasingly rare due to medical technology but it has happened. And in this case, it can more accurately be described as self-defense instead of murder.

Second, the hospital says that the child was not receiving enough oxygen and was actually dying when they intervened. As many have said, there is nothing moral about sitting around watching mother and child die. Perhaps, you think the hospital is lying but if we assume that they are telling the truth then, letting both die is not very compassionate.

I spent a lot of time telling pro-choicers that being a woman is different. There are no other instances where you have to subject your body to great trial for another human being. But I think pro-lifers also need to realize that being a pregant woman is different. ONLY A PREGNANT woman’s life can be threatened by the presence of another human being in her body and therefore, the rules have to reflect that unique reality.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:21 AM (EST):

I think the idea that you must obey your conscience goes at least as far as Saint Thomas. This does not mean that you may not be wrong but you can’t act morally without your conscience. Sinning against your conscience is dangerous. I think st. Thomas said it is a sin to sin against your conscience; I could look it up if you insist.

I have seen no evidence that the great horrors of the 20th centuries were a result of people obeying their conscience; it seems to me that people were obeying charismatic political figures instead of their conscience. Our conscience is from God; it is good. It is the other noise we let in that is a problem.

Anne, I understand and appreciate your feelings about the institutional Church but I fear that your separating yourself may have some even more serious effects on your theology. As bad as institutionalized religion might be, our Lord did not die to oppose insitutionalized religion; that would actually be a small and unworthy mission. He died to redeem humanity, including clerics. Jesus is not a rebel (He was obedient unto death, Phil 2:8); he was a savior.

I also think you are overreading Jesus’s words to the religious leaders. Sure he condemned their behavior but not their office:

In Matthew 23, Jesus said, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.”

We have every reason to believe that Jesus was a temple attending, observant Jew. He wanted the money changers out of the temple because it was God’s house—a place where insitutionalized worship took place. And when he was being accused, no one could find anything substantive to accuse him with because he was an observant jew. He ended his ministry by instituting the apostles to teach and preach in his name. He told them they had the power to retain and forgive sins. You can’t do these things outside of an insitution.

As I was writing this, I realized that Jesus left us lots of really good models of how to boldly criticized the men who pervert the institution while remaining while remaining faithful to the institutionalized convenant, which is from God. So, thanks Anne and I hope that you will come to find that balance.

Lastly, it is very easy to start reading Scripture through one’s anger, hurt, politics, etc. We all need to work hard at resisting that temptation.

Peace and God bless,
Carolyn Hyppolite

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:16 AM (EST):

Anne,

If Christ were rejecting “organized religion”, then why did His every action constitute a fulfillment of, perfection of, and transformation of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant?

It’s certainly true that He had harsh words for the Pharisees, even calling them blind guides, whitewashed tombs, and hypocrites. Yet He still bound the people to listen to them, because they sat on Moses’ seat.

I get the impression He was not rejecting organized religion, but the hypocrisy, pride, and arrogance of those who had authority over the peoople. Thus, I do not see a rejection of the Church He established as any answer, even when some of the leaders are hypocrites. We are told, by Christ Himself, in Matthew’s Gospel, to listen to them - just don’t do as they do.

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 2:06 AM (EST):

Fr. Robert George, I have to say that I am saddened, but not surprised, by your claim that ” Had the hospital followed a more strict interpretation of the ERD, Church teaching would have been for the hospital to let mother AND the unborn child die. Not a good, or on my view, a very pastoral option.”

With all due respect, patients die in hospitals all the time because treatments fail. Why should preventing the death of a pregnant woman (and ONLY a pregnant woman) be justification for directly killing another innocent and defenseless human being?

I have asked this before, and would very much like an answer. Who else may we kill that another might live? Can we kill an indigent man whose type and crossmatch, and HLA antigens, match a rich young man who needs the poor man’s heart?

Your insistence upon calling the unborn child by his/her latin medical name “fetus” - while simultaneously ignoring the latin medical name of the pregnant woman (gravida), leads me to suspect that you believe the unborn child has less value than both the gravida and the indigent man whose heart someone else could use.

Otherwise, I am completely baffled as to why you would assert that killing the “fetus” to save the “gravida” is ever licit.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:47 AM (EST):

Carl, is it not your conscience that tells you to be Catholic?
Is it not your conscience that supports your faith in Catholicism?
If your conscience told you it was sophistry and lies what would you do?
I fail to see how a person can ignore his or her own conscience.
I really do.
Don’t Catholics accept the authority of the church
because they think it is the right thing to do?
That’s the way it has seemed to me all my life.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:42 AM (EST):

Let me clear up a misunderstanding.
I did NOT mean to imply that Our Blessed Lord
died “outside” Jerusalem by choice, or in protest.
I meant simply to say,
Our Lord died because he opposed organized religion.
Obviously Jesus had nothing to say about where he
was crucified. I was only trying to be accurate.
That he died protesting organized religion is
a matter of record.
Sorry. I suppose I should have said,
Our Lord died in Jerusalem because he opposed organized religion,
but that’s not quite right. He was outside.

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:38 AM (EST):

Anne,

I’ve never heard it said before than Christ died outside Jerusalem because He “opposed organized religion.” That’s a new one on me.

Scripture says the He died outside the gates for our sanctification. Hebrews 13:12 directly links His sacrificial death outside Jerusalem with the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement. (see Lev. 16:27).

We also know that Christ is the Lamb of God - the Passover Lamb. Those lambs were slain outside the gate in preparation for the Passover. John 19:14 tells us that Christ was killed at the exact moment the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover, thus, directly linking Christ’s sacrifice as the Lamb of God with the Passover.

Thus, Christ was fulfilling the Old Covenant, and instituting a New Covenant in His Blood. This does not sound like a rejection of “organized religion” to me.

Posted by Truth Be Lived on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:31 AM (EST):

The true Truth to power is through, with, and in God. Quite your souls and allow His Truth to speak.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:30 AM (EST):

Anne,

Again, there is no doubt that you can run out Noonan, Rahner and a whole host of theologians who agree with your POV - but again, theologians are not (thank God!) the Magisterium instituted by Christ. If they were, Catholic doctrine and morals would be changing about every 35-40 years.

Pax Christi,

Carl

Posted by TheresaEE on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:29 AM (EST):

It’s been said here before, but is worth repeating, that some people simply don’t know the difference between a doctor directly and intentionally killing an innocent and defenseless human being - and a patient who dies despite the doctor’s efforts to save them.

This is why “Abscissio” can make the absurd claim that Bishop Olmstead “rejects the ERD’s. He damns himself, however, because now the taking of the mother’s life would be included.”

No one would be “taking” the mother’s life because they refused to kill her unborn child, anymore than they would be “taking” the life of a man who dies for want of a heart transplant because his doctor refused to kill someone whose HLA tissue typing matched the patient’s.

It’s one thing to advocate for the killing of the unborn child. It’s quite another to insist that someone who refuses to kill the unborn is actually guilty of the loss of the mother’s life!

Chilling.

Posted by Carl on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 1:24 AM (EST):

Dear Fr. Robert George, Anne, and company,

Fr. Robert George wrote:

“But once one has a formed conscience and is properly informed, one must still follow dictates of conscience.”

But that is the very essence of subjectivism and moral relativism. You seem to want to paint my comments and those of Fr. J as insensitive, heady, intellectual, ivory tower, non-pastoral theories. However, the notion that conscience is the ultimate arbiter of human action such that one can “in conscience” choose action “A” even when one KNOWS ACTION “A” TO BE OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL is the most frightening moral position of all. Its consequences are mega-pastoral to the nth degree. On what possible basis can you or anyone else meaningfully discuss “good” or “bad” human behavior, if at any time and for any reason, one may appeal to their individual “conscience” as directing them to commit otherwise evil acts? I am sorry, but the problem of moral relativism - which is what your position necessarily entails (even if you do not intend such a consequence) brought ruin upon 20th century humanity. JPII and Benedict XVI lived through those consequences, and it has therefore been their great concern to combat the very foundational moral errors which support relativism in morals. That is why Pope JPII wrote Veritatis Splendor and it is why Benedict XVI has made the problem of the “dictatorship of relativism” a staple of his pontificate.

With respect, I deeply disagree with your position and think, quite frankly, that your pastoral sympathies are grossly misplaced. Further, to be clear, I in no way disparage the reality of your good intentions, or those of Anne, or those of your professors. Nonetheless, it is objectively the case that your/their position is in direct conflict with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as regards Moral Theology. I am painfully aware that no small number of professors and theologians have great distain for the Magisterium’s position on conscience, law, intrinsic evil, etc.. Still, a band of theologians sporting the epistemic and metaphysical wares of modernity does not constitute a second magisterium. I take notice that you have avoided any substantive response to my comments other than to insinuate that I am pastorally challenged. Nor have you made any effort to show how your position squares with Veritatis Splendor - an encyclical SPECIFICALLY written to counter your current ethical posture.

Fr. George wrote:

“We could argue that if one has a properly formed conscience and is properly informed, that he or she would never / could never conclude that the “proper moral choice” in a subjective situation conflicts with the objective moral teachings of The Church [that is exactly what you should be arguing], but that’s just nonsense. Church history shows us that, in the various reform movements within religious communities and the larger Catholic Church, to say nothing of our Protestant brothers and sisters.”

In what way does Church history show us that reform movements within the Church indicate a license to obey one’s subjective conscience in direct violation of KNOWN objective moral laws? The history of the Church shows exactly the opposite - especially in her reform movements. Do you really intend to argue that Catholic history is replete with the notion that ends justify the means? That does seem to be your expressed position. One may do what one knows to be an objectively evil act if - all things (subjectively) considered, one believes/feels in “conscience” that one must do so. But hells-bells, where does that kind of worship of conscience end? Given such a view of conscience is there ANY act at all that one cannot override with an appeal to conscience? If so, on what basis will you draw the line? In short, your position entails that one may utilize an evil means to achieve a “good” end. From St. Paul, to St. Augustine, to St. Thomas, to St. Benedict, St. Dominic, St. Francis, to Benedict XVI - where do you see this position advanced? And Protestantism - who knows where the doctrinal and moral truth lies therein?

I fully believe that your motives and intentions are golden; but I also hope you will extend courtesy to those of us who stand by the Magisterium’s teachings on these matters, by recognizing that our efforts are not tied to some theoretic or theological program or construct – they are deeply pastoral in nature. I have 5 children who are all embarking upon a world which is markedly post Christian. I would never - NEVER - as a Christian father instruct my children - pastorally - to elevate their conscience above the objective moral law when making life’s difficult decisions. The small temporal convenience they might gain under rare and difficult situations by having recourse to such an “out-by-conscience”, is not worth the integrity of soul which is lost when one enshrines the dictates of conscience above God’s law. Such an enshrinement is a false human deification and produces moral anarchy – “everyone one of them doing what seems best in his own eyes”. I am broken-hearted that you, as a pastor and father to God’s flock, would encourage such a notion.

It will enlighten you to some of the things that were happening that weren’t previously known.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:55 AM (EST):

Very well said, Anne.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:50 AM (EST):

Erin, let me recommend a book to you by a Catholic.
It’s A Church That Can And Cannot Change,
by John T. Noonan, Jr.

Nobody here to my knowledge has ever suggested that “it’s fine to kill” a child,
or anyone. Why would you characterize what we are saying in these terms?
This seems almost vicious. It’s perfectly horrifying. Why would you accuse anybody
here of having done this? How can you justify that kind of misrepresentation?

The passage in the Tempest refers to this. Prospero puts
his old oppressors through a number of ordeals to work a profound
moral change in them. They undergo this change. And they are
better for it. Leading Ferdinand to believe he has lost his father is part of it,
part of the teaching of a lesson.
That is the deep moral meaning of the play.
Abscissio’s quote was apt.

Those who support Sr. McBride and the hospital are not
heretics. The hospital has again and again expressed its
profound and committed support for all life.
They have patiently explained that they wanted to save
both the mother and the baby. But confronted with the death of
both, they saved the life they could save.

Is it really so hard for you to grasp this—whether or not you agree with it?
Is it impossible for you to concede that these people, though
you might not agree with them, have a moral point?
They are not your enemies. They are people of experience who see things differently from
the way you see them.
Can you not reach into your heart and find there
the strength to at least be honest about them, if you
cannot agree with them?

“Tinny droning of the conglomeration of apostay collected here!”
How you must despise us. I cannot judge your emotions or
your intentions, but this is so profoundly unkind.

I will continue to post here when I feel I can accomplish something.
It saddens me deeply that you have such a low opinion of others.

Posted by Abscissio on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:48 AM (EST):

Erin Manning, no need to reflect. That is the origin of the term sea change.

What you should reflect upon is that, according to Bishop Olmsted “it is always wrong directly and intentionally to take the life of an innocent human being” is rejected. Even indirect and unintentional taking of a life is wrong. He rejects the ERD’s. He damns himself, however, because now the taking of the mother’s life would be included.

Posted by Erin Manning on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:32 AM (EST):

Abscissio should perhaps reflect upon the fact that Ariel’s “Full fathom five” speech in “The Tempest” is, in fact, a lie. Ferdinand’s father is not dead, has undergone no sea change, is very much alive, and will shortly be reunited with his son.

The same thing is true for the Church, for all the tinny droning of the conglomeration of apostasy collected here. She undergoes no sea-change. She will teach tomorrow what she taught yesterday, which is that it is always wrong directly and intentionally to take the life of an innocent human being. We are not taught to love our neighbor as ourselves unless our neighbor happens to be an unborn child in which case it’s fine to kill her, just as we’re not taught that we can stop loving our neighbor if he is suspected of terrorism and might know where a ticking time bomb is.

Even these heresies aren’t new. There have been plenty of heresies that have denied the intrinsic worth of the human person. They are as commonplace and banal as most evil is.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:21 AM (EST):

Anne,

Obviously Sr. McBride and the staff at St. Joseph’s
are healers.
And they were indeed confronted with a horrible situation.

To see this discussed in purely abstract terms here,
again and again, is deeply demoralizing.

Exactly. Typical, sadly, of so many.

And now I must log off for a while, find a peaceful internal space and get ready for prayers and then find get back to thinking about the real Reason for the Season.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:06 AM (EST):

Fr. Robert George, I think you are so right,
that in all this, the pastoral aspect is missing.
Obviously Sr. McBride and the staff at St. Joseph’s
are healers.
And they were indeed confronted with a horrible situation.
To see this discussed in purely abstract terms here,
again and again,
is deeply demoralizing.

Posted by Anne Rice on Thursday, Dec 23, 2010 12:03 AM (EST):

Joanie, thanks for your thoughts on this.
I think the blog has run out of steam because people
are essentially saying the same things over and over again.
The hospital couldn’t in conscience tell the bishop that
what Sr. Margaret McBride did was “wrong” and this is
one of the things he was demanding—that his
condemnation of the saving of the woman’s life
(admittedly by an abortion or what some have called
an abortion) be accepted as correct.
And they cannot tell him that they will not do the same
thing again.
That perhaps is even more crucial.
They have indicated that if the same situation arose they
would save the only life that they can save. They will not
let two people die when they can save one of those people.
So they really can’t do what the bishop wants.
Regarding the other matters—- their affiliation with groups
that offer contraceptive info or voluntary sterilization, obviously
this is a very important issue.
And we will see more talk about that in days to come.
The public discussion may come to include arguments
pro and con those other situations.
There are certainly many many Catholics who use artificial
birth control and think that it is permissible.
So this may be a big issue in the coming weeks.
Though I support the hospital completely,
I do think this confrontation was probably inevitable.
But I wonder how many other bishops were already
familiar with situations like this and chose not
to make a confrontation.
It is a fascinating situation.
Also there is another very important aspect to this:
The Bishop, in my opinion was asking this hospital
to commit to breaking the law.
A hospital cannot legally deny life saving care to a
dying mother.
The conscience clause may not allow that sort of thing.
The ACLU has suggested that the law requires hospitals
to treat women in emergency reproductive crises.
So that is something that must be discussed and has
huge implications for any woman who finds herself
in a Catholic emergency room.
Will she get the life saving care to which she is legally
entitled or not?
It cannot be swept under the rug.
And now that Sr. Carol Keehan
president and chairman of the Catholic Health Association
has come out in full support of St. Joseph’s that
brings up a whole bunch of other issues.
How many other hospitals agree with Sr. McBride in
what she did?
I don’t know all the answers.
But I do know this is a huge situation.
And I think the story will get bigger in the days to come,
as American women realize what is at stake here for them.
As for all the other questions being discussed here,
it becomes dizzying.
I’m not out of steam. It just seems pointless to
keep repeating the same things
about canon law, natural law,
Scripture etc.
How many times can a person say these things?

Posted by Joanie on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 11:43 PM (EST):

But Robert George what happened to that mother didn’t CAUSE the whole situation as you say. The hospital had been defying Church teaching for quite a long while. I am glad you, Anne and abcissio have discovered friendship on this board but you all seem to have run out of steam for quite a while now. Why wouldn’t the hospital merely permit the diocese to verify that it would comply with Catholic teaching, you know, down the road, even if it would prefer to insist that it was morally ok with the Bishops’ directives that they were not to intentionally take the life of a child?

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 11:31 PM (EST):

Dear Anne,

Your comments make it all worthwhile. :-) and the hope that someone will read this and be touched by God’s Grace in a special way in the midst of the debate. And, maybe <grin> because it’s a break from all the activities surronding Christmas…for just a while <laughing>.

I’m sure these same people have labeled me. You can see it in the responses. Carl, who may or may not be a fellow cleric, challenging my former Professors’ validity, scholarship or whatever and challenging my community formation and the layperson who responds to Carl with this:

Priests who condone intrinsically evil actions compromise the truth. Those who don’t hear the truth are attracted to his remarks.

The whole situation makes me sad. I’m sad mostly for the family who now must deal with pain and loss. I’m sad for the Sister and others at St. Joseph’s who had to deal with this in the real world and sad the Ordinary decided to handle this specific situation.

Father J, making points that, in part I don’t disagree with (about the necessity to have a formed and informed conscience), but as I pointed out, are rather ludicrous in this situation for the reasons you just posted.

What makes me truly sad is that somewhere in this messy, horrific situation, the **pastoral** aspect seems to be missing. It all is very heady, very intellectual, very theoretical. Yet the situation that CAUSED this uproar was PASTORAL involving real people—a real mother, a real father, real families—real pain.

And real pain for Sister McBride and those who made the decisions.

All that seems to be lost on some people, but not on me…and probably not on you.

Robert George

Posted by Minnesota Mary on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 11:12 PM (EST):

Another good bishop, Bishop Vasa of the Diocese of Baker, Oregon made the same decision regarding the St. Charles Hospital in Bend, OR.

Pray for these courageous bishops! They are standing up for Truth, even though it is very unpopular to do so.

Posted by TC on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 11:09 PM (EST):

Thank you, Bishop Olmstead, for once again drawing attention to the silliness of a group of celibate men trying to tell those of us who actually use our bodies what to do with them. Thank you, also, for drawing attention to how much the Catholic Church values unborn children over actually born children. When fetuses are harmed, they shout so loudly, and when children are raped (please don’t water it down with the word “molestation”), priests are shuffled around and hidden away.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:50 PM (EST):

Anne,

Again thank you for your comments about Christ. He did go against the system to bring people to a closer relationship with God and his statement “This is my body…” was utterly radical.

Keep the faith in God, in the teachings of our Savior, even as you have left the formal community of The Catholic faith.

Robert George

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:50 PM (EST):

Fr. Robert George, all reports regarding
Sr. Margaret McBride indicate unqualified
admiration of her amongst those who’d worked
with her and knew her.
She seems a shining example of a Catholic
and a Catholic hospital administrator.
I think just about anyone can assume on the
basis of what we know that she has a well informed
conscience.

But it is clear here that some on this site
will simply insist that anyone disagreeing with them
does not have a well informed conscience.

I think we can all see the absurdity of this.
You have infinitely more patience than I do.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:40 PM (EST):

Father J.,

Thank you for your comments. One of my professors, years ago, made a similar comment.

As a priest, an ethicist and more importantly as a human being, I don’t take this at all lightly. I agree with you that if we follow our conscience there are consequences and I think you’re trying to say that humans have an obligation to develop a properly formed and informed conscience. For Catholics, that means studying teachings of the faith and understanding why we have those teachings. In theory that’s why we have PSR, Catholic schools and institutions of higher learning. (I say “in theory” because many would argue that many of these institutions are failing at their task.) But once one has a formed conscience and is properly informed, one must still follow dictates of conscience.

We could argue that if one has a properly formed conscience and is properly informed, that he or she would never / could never conclude that the “proper moral choice” in a subjective situation conflicts with the objective moral teachings of The Church, but that’s just nonsense. Church history shows us that, in the various reform movements within religious communities and the larger Catholic Church, to say nothing of our Protestant brothers and sisters.

It’s especially ludicrous to assume that those sitting on a hospital Ethics Committee which would include Clergy and Religious with advanced study in Catholic health care ethics, moral theology in addition to normal formation and, in the case of priests, seminary, do not informed consciences. As individuals, some may have ill formed consciences (as in the recent sex scandals), but that’s more likely to affect personal conduct than what decisions such individuals might make in a medical situation involving a case.

Posted by Virginia Mary on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:36 PM (EST):

I am a Catholic and at this time very proud of my Bishop.

Posted by Scott W. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:26 PM (EST):

Really, Scott W.? Answer this: Why did God create a moral dilemma with Abraham asking him to kill his son to prove his faith? If killing the innocent is never possible, why would God even think of doing this? It would be unconscionable.

I don’t know why he did that. However, His divine law against deliberately killing the innocent is absolute and binding on us humans unless you think someone killing his teenage son and invoking the story of Abraham as justification passes muster. No? Didn’t think so.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:16 PM (EST):

Anne, Thank you again for your kind words. They are probably the nicest sincere words one could write. They bring a smile to my face. I do not do what I do for my own glory or for wealth.

When I was young, I admit I enjoyed wearing “clerics” and being treated specially because of priesthood—which by the way is, in my thinking now, contrary to the simple, loving teachings of our Savior. But, even in my young arrogance (where theological proclamations seemed oh so important and worth hours and hours of argument over little points), people came first, especially after I earned a Master in Social Work.

Now as I am approaching retirement not to far down the pike, I prefer, in public, to be an anonymous person who’s faith is seen not because I’m wearing the “clerics” or because I have the title “priest” but because I live in love and my actions should reflect that faith that I’ve professed for years.

There has been too much abuse of the titles and authority. And, sadly The Church has responded too often to issues more as a corrupt organization than as proclaimers of The Gospel.

Yet, in spite of everything that human men and women have done to pervert and destroy The Church in our actions words and deeds, in what we have done and what we have left undone, The Church survives because of The Holy Spirit’s presence even in this mess—and therefore, we can have hope.

Regarding the situation with the dear people who run Saint Joseph’s. They were faced with a horrific decision. That much is clear. Had the hospital followed a more strict interpretation of the ERD, Church teaching would have been for the hospital to let mother AND the unborn child die. Not a good, or on my view, a very pastoral option. Taking that option, which might have pleased the Bishop and some of my clergy colleagues (and some laity), also would have violated accepted medical professional ethics and perhaps state and federal regulations. (I’m not certain about that since I have not read the actual medical records.)

So… between a rock and a hard place…. the hospital’s administration and ethics committee felt it had an “out” within Official Catholic Teaching… Directive 47 (mentioned above) and, probably more than finding an “out” within Catholic teaching, the hospital was probably concerned with obtaining the best outcome in this horrible situation. Either way the fetus was apparently not going to survive, and at least this way through the abortion the mother would live.

Having sat on such committees at other facilities I can tell you that the decision was agonizing and the hospital did not make the decision without consulting the woman’s family, legal religious and ethical advisers. Being a hospital in the Catholic tradition, at least one or more of these individuals would have been a specialist in Catholic health care ethics, policy and theology.

This does not mean that hospital officials wanted to make this choice.

It’s one of those “person-in-situation” times that those of us trained in social work talk about where official policies and doctrine act as a guide, but the people involved look at the specific situation rather than theory addressed in documents, policy manuals, etc.

And I pray for them because it’s anything but easy.

Robert George

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 10:10 PM (EST):

Really, Scott W.? Answer this: Why did God create a moral dilemma with Abraham asking him to kill his son to prove his faith? If killing the innocent is never possible, why would God even think of doing this? It would be unconscionable.

Posted by Scott W. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:57 PM (EST):

Excellent point Fr. J. There are two errors about conscience: A leftist error and a rightist error in a manner of speaking. The rightist error says the sole job of the conscience is to throw the penalty flag when you are doing something wrong. But it is also a spur to doing good and working to cultivate positive virtues. The leftist error is that conscience is a moral law unto itself that has absolute veto power over ANY law, even divine prohibitions against deliberately killing the innocent. Think of it like a smoke alarm. Sometimes I burn the toast and it sets off the smoke alarm. Burnt toast isn’t a serious issue, but the couch in the living room on fire is. The smoke alarm doesn’t determine which is which. Something outside the smoke alarm does this—reality and truth. Saying abortion is acceptable because one’s conscience says it is acceptable is like ripping the batteries out of the smoke alarm, sitting in a living room engulfed in flames and saying that because the smoke alarm isn’t beeping, there’s no fire.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:53 PM (EST):

Carolyn, he went against the entire system.
He stood up in the Temple precincts and said,
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.
All through the Gospel of John he offers Himself
as an alternative to the organized religion into which
he was born.
His statement: “This is my body, this is my blood”
was utterly radical.

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:48 PM (EST):

Ann, I shall remember you at Christmas Mass. You are correct that no one knows the future. I pray that in the future we will see you back among us. Merry Christmas.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:48 PM (EST):

Ann,

I don’t think Jesus had a choice on where he died; the Romans did. And as I read scripture, it seems to me that Jesus had trouble with the behavior of thereligious leaders of his day but not their office.

Peace
Carolyn Hyppolite

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:46 PM (EST):

Fr. George, while you are correct that we are obliged to follow our conscience we are still responsible for our actions. Especially if our conscience is not properly formed and informed. Often people fool themselves. You can follow your conscience and it might lead you straight to hell. If someone who claims to be Catholic says that their conscience compels them to disobey a magisterial teaching that is definitively proclaimed then there are consequences. They are at least in error if not heresy. In this case also schism since they refuse obedience to the Ordinary. As one of my professors said, “you bet your life on what you believe.” So you had best get it right. When it comes to directly killing a child you had better consider your eternal soul.

Posted by liseux on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:43 PM (EST):

Carl, your response to Fr. Robert George was on target.

Priests who condone intrinsically evil actions compromise the truth. Those who don’t hear the truth are attracted to his remarks.

Diane presented, again, and again, a doctor who has dealt with pulmonary hypertension during pregnancy and of 45 cases, the disease was dealt with and the child was not killed. None of the mothers died.

Anne Rice and her followers don’t want to hear this.

Killing the child is a much easier, faster solution.

I enjoy your posts, Carl. Please keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:42 PM (EST):

Fr. J., I do not seek to return. But seeking God’s truth is
a life long journey, and no one knows the future.
Our Lord Jesus Christ died outside Jerusalem because he
opposed organized religion, and
I am compelled to follow his example.
I thank you for your kindness.
I understand exactly what Dwayne meant by his post.
It is difficult for non-Catholics to understand, I think,
how Catholics can seek to control access to God, through
access to the Eucharist.
But all this is really beside the point here.
Thanks again.

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:39 PM (EST):

Dwayne, I don’t think Ann sees it that way. Don’t you think that someone who becomes Catholic should actually profess the Catholic faith?

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:37 PM (EST):

Ann, once the Bishop of Rome stood against the Roman Empire. Who is still around? So I don’t think one hospital will break Christ’s Church. I am of course saddened by your story since studying those same great theologians and Church history led me to the Catholic faith. We came to opposite conclusions. I pray that God will grant you the graces you need to return home.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:32 PM (EST):

Father Robert George, I rarely trust religious figures. Too many have failed me in times of moral crisis. As I read your beautiful post, I thought to myself that I would go to you for advice when I am vulnerable, I would be honored to sit in your church, and that it is a privilege to hear your words now. You speak from what I believe is true faith.

Posted by Joanie on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:26 PM (EST):

It should be noted that the diocese in question received ZERO from the hospital, ZERO.

So Abscissio you think poor women want or need to be pumped up with hormones as well? I guess only the rich women should have authentic care in your book. But we already know your story, you hate the church, you left it, etc. etc.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:23 PM (EST):

Dear Anne,

Thank you for your kind words about my original post. I also wish you continued blessings on your journey and thank you for caring about this issue and about your Catholic brothers and sisters.

I believe that in the priesthood to which all of us are called as Christians not just those of us males who are ordained, one is to speak the truth in love and that is what I try to do everyday. And, I honestly knew that some people here would not appreciate or agree with what I posted, but I still stand by speaking the truth in love. If I do not, then what I preach on Christmas or any holy day, or any given Sunday, is of little use.

In The Savior’s Love,

Robert George

Dear Carl, I will respond to your lengthy comments shortly.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:19 PM (EST):

It should also be noted that Bishop Olmsted is targeting care provided to Medicaid and Medicare patients. As Olmsted stated in his letter above, “CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital, as part of what is called “Mercy Care Plan”, have been formally cooperating with a number of medical procedures that are contrary to the ERDs, for many years. I was never made aware of this fact until the last few weeks.”

For those less sophisticated, he is not only taking on the CHW, he’s taking on the state and federal government. This is a showdown.

Posted by TC on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:13 PM (EST):

It should be noted that the hospital in question received ZERO funding from the Catholic Church. ZERO.

Posted by Joanie on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:58 PM (EST):

Well Anne the hospital has pretended for many many years that the core teaching of the Church does not exist (not the mere teaching of one particular bishop) and now it will pretend that it is still Catholic, to the tune of 2 billion. For it is pretense. Even wealthy, secular celebrity women are critical of the health problems inherent in synthetic hormones. In addition to flaunting Catholic teaching, it is not healthy towards the very women you purport to champion. You would have the Church merely look the other way when they commit these things for how many more decades. Is that authenticity, integrity or is it classic hypocrisy?

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:40 PM (EST):

Fr. J., regarding your off topic personal statement to me,
rest assured I did not return to the Roman Catholic Church
with any misunderstanding as to its teachings.
I grew up Catholic in New Orleans, a Catholic city.
And I was never under any illusion at any point
after my re-conversion in 1998 that any particular
points of Catholic teaching were necessarily negotiable.
This really is not the place for me to discuss at length
why I left the Roman Catholic Church.
If you want to pursue this, I am easy to reach by email.
However let me say this:
When I returned in 1998, I assumed that
the theological endeavor of the Roman Catholic Church
was honest and honorable.
After 12 years of intense study of theology, church history,
and Scripture, including study of St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Augustine, and other theologians,
and after living as a Catholic,
I came to the unavoidable conclusion that the
theological endeavor of the RCC was not at all
honorable and not at all honest.
My problem has never been a lack of education
about your church or a misunderstanding of what it teaches.
I left as a matter of conscience.
To say any more here would be inappropriate.
It is well known that I remain concerned with
the church, because of its considerable impact on
the world. Also I have a deep affection for Catholics
in general, as I do for all principled people.
The Roman Catholic Church as I have known it
all my life is something infinitely bigger than its
hierarchy.
And my heart goes out to those at St. Joseph’s hospital
who have stood up for their interpretation of canon
law and the directives governed by it.
I thank you for the prayers who said for my husband.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:39 PM (EST):

One of the **problems** in dealing with Catholic Healthcare West, as an organization, when there are conflicts or apparent conflicts with Catholic Teaching or Canon Law, is that the organization is no longer, itself, a Roman Catholic organization despite the name, but is a corporation / network which includes Catholic hospitals and non-Catholic community or regional hospitals. According to CHW’s website, only CHW’s Catholic hospitals follow the ERD while the other non-Catholic hospitals follow C “CHW Statement of Common Values” [ http://www.chwhealth.org/Who_We_Are/Our_Mission_Vision_And_Values/STGSS047977 ].

In the situation which caused this uproar and our resulting discussion here online, Saint Joseph’s Hospital, which continues to profess (on its website) that it abides by the ERD, felt that it was on safe ground within Roman Catholic teaching and doctrine based on Directive 47 which reads:

“Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

Posted by Chris on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:35 PM (EST):

“We may not do evil that good may result.”

I keep waiting to see who will claim that in the “SAW” movies, the people killing each other in order to save themselves were all actually doing very moral & admirable acts in line with Catholic teaching…

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:32 PM (EST):

Dear Fr. Robert George,

“However, it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality (official Church teaching) once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way. In fact, it is a **sin** not to follow one’s own conscience even when there is a conflict between conscience and Magisterium.”

I am very sorry, but you unfortunately were exposed to a form of Moral Theology quite incompatible with the Magisterial teaching of the Church. What you describe sounds almost identical to Karl Rahner’s existential ethics. One can never, in “authentic” (read according to Magisterial teaching) use conscience as a trump card over objective moral norms - even though many a dissenting catholic theologian would have it otherwise.

How can your statement be reconciled with Veritatis Splendor or the entire prior Catholic moral Tradition?

It is true that one is bound to follow one’s conscience according to what one knows to be the truth in morals. To fail to do so would indeed be sin on the part of the subject since to do otherwise would be to act against what one “thinks” is the law of God.

However, one has a PRIOR OBLIGATION to know the truth in morals so far as one can. Conscience is not the final arbiter in morals but only the proximate application of moral knowledge held by the moral agent. The key point is that “conscience has rights because it first has duties”.

A person who KNOWS a given act to me intrinsically immoral can NEVER put forward circumstances or personal conscience as a valid reason for doing intrinsic eveil. That is the firm teaching of the entire train of atholic Magisterial pronouncements from time immimorial down to JPII and Veritatis Splendor. Without a doubt, JPII wrote Veritatis Splendor to combat EXACTLY the kind of moral theory which you were taught.

Hence your statement that “In fact, it is a **sin** not to follow one’s own conscience even when there is a conflict between conscience and Magisterium.” is manifestly false if one knows that conflict to exist before acting. Even if the theologians and professors responsible for your seminary formation refused to acknowledge the Church’s teaching on this point.

Yours in Christ,

Carl

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:28 PM (EST):

I have never met anyone who hates babies. Can we talk without all the petty insults. This is not the behavior we should modeling to the world.

They will know you by your love!

Posted by BeeKay on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:18 PM (EST):

Oh no surprise here, the baby haters are here railing against the good bishop. Their irrational hatred of children shows in their rabid comments.

In their eyes, fraud is OK, deception is OK and flat out lying is OK.

That hospital is not Catholic, it is deceiving people into believing it is Catholic. But that’s OK as long as they kill babies.

The bishop did right. Kudos to him.

Posted by David B. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:09 PM (EST):

Abscissio,

When one helps another procure an abortion, they excommunicate themselves.

Furthermore, if there is a sea change, let each of us be sure that he/she is on the right side of the tide, and isn’t swept away by culturally accepted but morally bankrupt situational “ends justify the means” ethics, as too many are.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:07 PM (EST):

Father Robert George, thank you for this
eloquent and gentle statement.
Much appreciated.
As you can probably see there is considerable confusion
on this site as to matters of individual conscience,
and who defines what is Catholic and what is
not Catholic.
Which I’m sure will not surprise you.
Though this is not my blog, as a person who
posts here, I thank you for your statement.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:04 PM (EST):

Joanie, I disagree.
I think we are going to see in the days to come
that St. Joe’s will not relinquish its Catholic label or identity.
And I do not think Sr. Keehan will relinguish her Catholic identity
either.
Whatever your beliefs about this,
I hope you acknowledge that every person must follow her conscience.
Those who believe this bishop was wrong must stand up to him.
Though I am not Catholic, I understand the love of Catholics for their
church and how painful it is for them when some one defines their
church in a way that they cannot morally accept.
For most Catholics I have known the church is worth fighting for….even
against a bishop.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:04 PM (EST):

Years ago, I learned in Moral Theology that things aren’t so black and white as many would like to paint them. The Church’s official statements given through the Magisterium (official teaching authority of the Church), reflect objective morality and should be used as the guide for living out daily morals and values as Catholics. However, it has always been a mainstay of authentic Catholic teaching that an individual **must** follow his or her conscience even when it conflicts with “objective” morality (official Church teaching) once the person has reflected on the situation in light of Church teaching in an informed way. In fact, it is a **sin** not to follow one’s own conscience even when there is a conflict between conscience and Magisterium.

I believe this is also true when Catholic institutions, including hospitals, with real-world moral decisions.

As a former hospital chaplain, as a clinical social worker, professor, health care ethicist and in my many years parish ministry, I have personally witnessed, or was directly involved in many situations where in the name of compassion, to adhere to the official Directives simply was **wrong**!

Saint Joseph’s Hospital has its own statement in response to the Good Bishop:
http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/Press_Center/211990

I am not affiliated with CHW nor have I reviewed the legally privileged records in the specific case, but had I been sitting on Saint Joseph’s Medical Ethics Committee, I probably would have voted for the same decision the hospital made in this specific case. To me, that would have been truly more reflective of authentic Christian compassion as well as the legal and ethical responsibilities of the hospital and, in such a situation, I would feel no need, later, to speak to my Confessor or report to my religious superior. None.

Posted by joanie on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 7:54 PM (EST):

Well actually the bishops do not need to raise the specter of schism. But when someone places themselves higher or outside of the communion of the Church, then they have placed themselves thus. No need for any pronouncements other than what has already been achieved. The faithful are now informed. It is a Catholic hospital no longer.

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 7:36 PM (EST):

Oh and by the way - though Anne Rice and I apparently have profound disagreements regarding ethical theory; I think she is a marvelous novelist. I wish very much that she and her talents would return to the Catholic people - as hypocritical, sinful, and uncharitable as we sometimes are. Family is often the place of deepest joy and deepest hurt. God, to the extent that we can speak of His emotions in an anoogical way, has endured an entire history of joys and sorrow over the behavior of His family. Still - family is family.

Pax Christi

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 7:28 PM (EST):

@Carolyn,

No problem! Peace and good to you and yours!

May God guide His family into unity with charity

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 7:08 PM (EST):

Yes, Carol, I agree that we need to pray for the church.
And I will pray for the church, indeed.
And you are right to remind us to
be kind and humble.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 7:05 PM (EST):

I hope we can agree on this. Can we agree that we need to pray for the Church? Can we agree to pray for love in the Church? Can we pray that starting with us that we can be patient, kind, humble, that we will work on not being rude, irritable, that we will not rejoice in wrong doing? And that God will grant others the grace to do likewise.

I will commit the next daily rosaries for that purpose. I hope you will join me in prayer.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:57 PM (EST):

Carolyn, I agree with you.
I hope that the Bishops don’t declare this schism.
But Sr. Carol Keenan is a powerful and wonderful person.
Thunder on the left!
She came out bravely for health care reform
when the bishops opposed it.
And as you can see from this blog,
some Catholics have a tendency to tell others,
“You aren’t Catholic.”
We’ll see if the bishops declare this a schism.
Or try to.
I think Bishop Olmsted’s stand may have been inevitable,
but he may have woefully underestimated the repercussions.
Can’t say.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:53 PM (EST):

Schism is a very bad thing. :(

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:52 PM (EST):

Carl,

My apologies for misinterpreting you.

Peace,
CKH

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:47 PM (EST):

I think the worst part of it is that the bishop chose the most sympathetic case to make an example of. I often wonder if they just never think about how this stuff looks. If there are so many instances of violations at this hospital, would it not have been wiser to select some case that did not involve a dying woman?

I don’t see how Catholics hospitals can avoid taking federal money given how much government is involved in health care, if you don’t take medicare and medicaid patients, you are cut off from large chunks of the market. I would rather Catholic hospitals not take federal money. We have enough internal problems and don’t need the outside intrusion.

Peace,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:44 PM (EST):

Sr. Carol Keehan is the leader of 1200 Catholic Hospitals
and Health Organizations nationwide,
and she has come out in favor of Sr. McBride’s reading
on Catholic ethics.
This is major!!!
Sister, I salute you for speaking truth to power!!!!

Will the bishops try to turn this into schism?

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:42 PM (EST):

Abscissio, Thank you and I so love the deep moral truths of
Shakespeare’s the Tempest. What a beautiful quotation that is.

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:42 PM (EST):

@ Carolyn,

“I was refuting your claim that any questioning of a particular decision made by a bishop is a mark of relativism”

Except I never made any such claim; thus I am perplexed as to why you would take the time to refute a position which has not been put forward.

Please do me the courtesy of refraining from attributing to me positions I neither hold or espouse.

Pax Christi

Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:38 PM (EST):

@ Fr J.

“By receiving you back into communion when you still had some major disagreements with de fide doctrines we have the impression that these were negotiable. It would have been better, in hindsight, to encourage you to assist at Mass, but to refrain from Holy Communion until these issues were dealt with.”

Such arrogance in your words. Can you really bow before our Lord and say such things? “By their fruit, you will recognize them.” This fruit is bad.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:36 PM (EST):

Ms. Rice, excellent post spotting and summarizing the major issues.

I do not believe this will remain as an isolated incident. I believe this was a power play on the part of the Church. What this means solely within Catholicism remains to be seen. Horses will be mounted and standards will fly.

Were it not for priest sex abuse scandal, there’s a possibility that this controversy would die out. I do not believe the Church will be content to leave it alone. I suspect that it is also trying to send a message that it has high moral standards when it has been so long under attack for its gross negligence, and apparent immorality, in dealing with the sex abuse scandal. I do not think the ACLU will let this die. If they’re examining it and have uncovered those other glaring incidents, this will go forward.

There already is a schism in the church. It has widened. I believe that what we’re witnessing is the early stages of a sea change.

Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.

(Shakespeare, The Tempest, Ariel’s Song)

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:35 PM (EST):

Wonderful news.
Sister Carol Keehan has stood up for St. Joseph’s
See the excellent article on this at Faith and Reason at
USA Today.
This is very simply magnificent.

I won’t get into your emotional tirade. It’s obvious that anybody who reads the posts here will realize that we don’t know all the facts. We have arguments going on from both sides picking and choosing what they consider to be relevant and factual. As much as I would like to believe the hospital in what they’re saying, I know and understand that they’re not going to take a position or say anything that will put them in danger of any liability. Anne has stated correctly that these hospitals take federal funds and there are implications with taking federal funds. I wish you and everyone a Merry Christmas and may God continue to enlighten you.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:23 PM (EST):

The discussion here seems to have become repetitive.
Many are posting excellent substantive posts, as I see
it, but we are going over and over the same territory,
questions, etc.
I’m not sure it serves anybody really for me to go on reiterating
my position, or attempting to clarify it for new posters
or for the same posters who, I believe, keep mischaracterizing it.
Those who support Sister McBride and those who support the
Bishop seem to be at a stalemate.
The argument about the credibility of the hospital’s version of
things seems a dead end.

I think there are staggering implications to what has happened
in Phoenix—— for the church and for the world.
Whatever one believes, this is the first time that I know of,
that a major institution like this, a hospital of this size with
this kind of prestige, has stood up to a bishop in this particular way.
Perhaps no bishop in the past has challenged such an institution.
The hospital in Oregon which met a similar fate seems much smaller.
Whatever one believes, this is going to have repercussions.
Whether one believes the hospital is right or wrong, this situation
will probably lead the press to question the Sisters of Mercy themselves,
and other Catholic organizations connected with health care about
this incident. Other religious orders may also be questions.
Bishops may investigate other hospitals. Other hospitals may be condemned
or cut off.

If all that does happen, will this become part of a movement, or is this going to be an isolated situation?
Given that all hospitals in America take federal funds,
will this prompt other Catholic hospitals to renounce all
tax payer money in the name of keeping a purer Catholic identity?
Is such a thing possible?
Will the ACLU continue to push for an investigation of Catholic hospitals?
I have little doubt that other bishops will continue to support Olmsted,
but what might that mean for other hospitals affiliated with St. Joe’s?

From what I’ve read about this incident, here and in numerous other places,
this confrontation was probably inevitable.

I wonder if it means schism.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:23 PM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias, who said, “We will never be sure of this because of the intervention that occurred. I am not convinced that we know all the facts. But I am convinced we’ve been given those facts in an attempt to justify what happened.”

Next time, offer up your daughter, sister, mother or any other woman who is important in your life and let’s count the number of angels on the head of a pin. Me, I’m just glad a mother is preparing for Christmas with her family. Sorry that upsets you that there is joy and thankfulness in one household. Imagine what her children would think if they saw all of you in here arguing that she should have been allowed to die. A family lives on, outside the debate, and are grateful that their home has not been shattered. Your statistics, your doubts, your opinions mean nothing to them. A mother lives.

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:23 PM (EST):

“The mother survived, but she too would have been a victim if she had been denied treatment.”

If, in fact, an infanticide took place; then the mother WAS a victim as much as the infant. The mother was the victim of advisers who directed her to make a passive voluntary act of will whereby she intentionally allowed the commission of a gravely immoral act - the taking of innocent life. Her body may have been preserved, but her soul was immeditaley placed in grave danger - to the extent that she was not ignorant of the objective evil of such an act.

If a person agrees that infanticide is intrinsically evil, and IF an infanticide occured, then why is the preservation of human life being elevated at the expense of the preservation of the human soul? I could understand this position among non-Christians who reject the very idea of a soul, sin, immortality, etc. but . . . .

“The mother survived, but she too would have been a victim if she had been denied treatment.”

We will never be sure of this because of the intervention that occurred. I am not convinced that we know all the facts. But I am convinced we’ve been given those facts in an attempt to justify what happened.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:11 PM (EST):

Wondering Aloud, the decision to excommunicate Sr. McBride was based upon one incident. Those seven years cited by the Bishop were for alleged violations of the ERD’s. However, Sr. McBride was excommunicated based upon one incident in which she consulted the ERD’s for guidance in making her decision. I have yet to see any allegations that she was party to the alleged seven years of violations.

This is really a battle between two institutions. For St. Joseph’s, it was a battle for its very existence because they would have lost their license to operate if they complied with the Bishop. The Bishop sought to remove any possibility of an abortion from the ERD’s, as codified by the Council of Bishops. In his diocese, that is now the ruling interpretation of Canon Law.

The victim, or sacrificial lamb, of that battle between institutions is Sr. McBride. The mother survived, but she too would have been a victim if she had been denied treatment.

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:07 PM (EST):

@Carolyn,

“This is a straw man. We have had debates in the Church before. Take for example the Church’s repeated denunciation and suppression of catholic theologians who used the historical critical method. In response to these condemnation, theologians continued to argue and try to work as best as they could, a century later, the Church embraced the historical critical method.”

I don’t see how your comment even remotely touches my point. Of course there is debate in the Church -UNTIL the Church speaks definitively to an issue. The Church’s “denunciation and supression” of the historical critical method is a highly controvertible claim. The Church rightly reacted to the underlying philosophical and epistemic approaches which informed the great majority of early 20th century scripture scholars. Such scholars were NOT simply working their craft in a philosophically neutral manner. Methodological skepticism and philosophical naturalism were the working assumptions in the field (and unfortunaley still are in many departments).

Perhaps Popes like Leo XIII and others “over-reacted”, but it is certainly easy to see a Providential hand - even in these reactions. Once the Church made the appropriate philosophical and methodological qualifications; she was in a position to integrate the historical and exegetical insights of the modern academy without the threat of an importation of bad philosophy.

But none of this has anything to say against my comment, since none of the Church’s debate/decisions regarding modern biblical scholarship entail definitive or infallible Church teaching. The Church can and has taught infallibly with regard to truth and morals. One can accept or reject that claim, but that acceptance or rejection is the fundamental difference between being Catholic and non-Catholic.

Whether the issue is the interpretation of scripture or some other point of faith and morals, the Church is not limited to a real-errant type of authority. On the contrary, she can and has spoken with the authority of Jesus Christ.

I am not sure why you are making so much of the privacy law aspect. We don’t have to know who was sterilize to know whether or not they occur and whether the hospital is willing to end this practice.”

It’s simple. The hospital doesn’t have to divulge any details of anything they do because they can cite medical privacy laws. In fact, this is what has been happening if you see what the Bishop is saying. He’s recently been informed of many occurrences that do not line up with the ERDs. If you can’t see that the hospital is manipulating what information it wants the public to see, you’re being naive. I am not surprised what the Bishop has found out. Like I mentioned beforehand, I have siblings who are physicians and they know this to be true. There’s isn’t much Catholic in the C in many CHW hospitals. There’s plenty of things happening within CHW hospitals that is not in conformance with Catholic directives. They just don’t become public information and the world never knows about them. The facts have not come out because it is not convenient for the hospital for said facts to come out. And you need facts to have a genuine discussion.

Posted by Wondering Aloud on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:58 PM (EST):

I am sorry Anne, I am a physicist not a theologian and I am being very literal. I am not confident that I am in communion with the church all of the time, but I don’t assume that therefore it is me who is in charge. I do think your great confidence in the right and wrong side of this issue flies in the face of established church doctrine and precedence. Claiming that the person charged by the church to make this decision, the bishop, is wrong requires a mighty strong case. You simply haven’t got one. This isn’t a decision made over one questionable incident and no one in the loop claims that it was just one issue.

Seven years!

Posted by Truth Be Lived on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:49 PM (EST):

God’s Truth is infallible.
Only our fallen fallible minds twist it to fit us.
God’s Love is unfailing and loves each of us deeply from the moment of our conception.
Only our failing construction of love enables us to justify evil.
God’s Truth and God’s Love are our life lines to cling to.
Pray for and trust in God’s Amazing Grace to lead us all to both.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:44 PM (EST):

@Joanie

“Since we regard the teaching authority of bishops and popes as illegitimate, I am wondering how we will develop our beliefs? From Biblical texts?”

You are probably offering this as tounge-in-cheek”. But in case you are not, the answer to your question is that we will essentially make up our beliefs as we go. There will be no meaningful difference between truth and opinion in matters of morality, human meaning, purpose, etc. The Catholic Church is the last rock standing in a sea of epistemic and moral relativism.

This is a straw man. We have had debates in the Church before. Take for example the Church’s repeated denunciation and suppression of catholic theologians who used the historical critical method. In response to these condemnation, theologians continued to argue and try to work as best as they could, a century later, the Church embraced the historical critical method.

No one, and certainly not I, have said that the bishop’s authority is illegitimate but that does not mean inerrant and it does not mean that the lay faithful cannot comment on the use of that authority. I think parents have legitimate authority but that does not mean they never err in their parenting decisions and it certainly does not mean they should not listen to their children. There seems to be this notion that if you think the bishop should not have done something that you want to overthrow them. I think this is an unfair mischaracterization of what other people are saying.

As for the implied suggestion that it would be inappropriate for Catholics to reflect on biblical texts in their teaching, I must say that I am concern by how infrequently Scripture comes into the conversation in my conversation with Catholics, and by how many Catholics think it is inappropriate for them to quote the Bible. The bible is our primary source (not our only source) and it should not take a back seat.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:43 PM (EST):

For Ms. Rice:

“Great authors are admirable in this respect: in every generation they make for disagreement. Through them we become aware of our differences.” —André Gide

Posted by David B. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:34 PM (EST):

Canon Lawyer(!) Ed Peters has some comments on this case over at canonlawblog.blogspot.com.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:28 PM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias,

I am not sure why you are making so much of the privacy law aspect. We don’t have to know who was sterilize to know whether or not they occur and whether the hospital is willing to end this practice.

CKH

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:19 PM (EST):

@Joanie

“Since we regard the teaching authority of bishops and popes as illegitimate, I am wondering how we will develop our beliefs? From Biblical texts?”

You are probably offering this as tounge-in-cheek”. But in case you are not, the answer to your question is that we will essentially make up our beliefs as we go. There will be no meaningful difference between truth and opinion in matters of morality, human meaning, purpose, etc. The Catholic Church is the last rock standing in a sea of epistemic and moral relativism.

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:52 PM (EST):

@Carolyn

Agreed - mostly.

But the bishop’s line seems rather to be “the details of the case did not fulfill the demands of the law of double-effect”. If the details of the case DO meet the double-effect criteria, then the Bishop has made an error in applying Catholic Moral teaching. That is no doubt, a legitimate point of discussion among Catholics (although I think we should give the bishop the benefit of the doubt that he has made a real effort to assess the application of double-effect criteria to the case as he understands it). Besides, his other allegations - on their face - do seem to more than justify his decision to revoke the “Catholic” status of the hospital.

But you will notice from Anne Rice’s 1:34pm comment to me above, that for her, the issue is not at all whether or not the bishop properly applied Catholic moral teaching; but rather that Catholic moral teaching is -in itself - inconsistent, hypocritical, immoral et al (at least parts of it). Hence, my attention to the “authority” issue with regard to the very basis of moral/ethical assertions. She very much desires to forge an understanding of truth in morals on some other basis - though she has yet to explicate what that basis might be.

Pax Christi!

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:48 PM (EST):

Carolyn, the bishop did give the hospital due process. He has carried out a careful investigation over the course of 7 years. They have had multiple opportunities to be heard and offer a defense. They had the final chance to agree to follow the ethical directives in the future. They refused. I think we must face the fact that they wanted to lose their right to be called a Catholic hospital. It freed them to do procedures that are morally evil. They had to act otherwise, but that seems to be a pretense. They show no real sign of being upset. If anything the bishop was too patient and they thought he would weakly give in. They only wanted to be a Catholic hospital in name only, but not at the expense of being truly Catholic. They now have the consequences. Justice is receiving ones due and they got their due.

Posted by joanie on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:48 PM (EST):

I thought St. Francis of Assisi took aim at the corruption of his secularist father, not the Church. Apparently he was most respectful to the authority of the magisterium. Though some were corrupt (as always…some individuals…), the Pope approved the Rule he took the time to present for approval, making the journey to Rome to seek it with his brothers.

But I feel that Anne Rice and others here are finally wearing me down. I am most willing to discover more about what the followers of Sr. McBride would teach since the entire Church is so thoroughly corrupt. Assuming that I agree that saving the life of this mother was such a noble deed and the medical details are thus, um, detailed, here…well, so then, what is next for us? Where shall we go? Where shall we worship now that we are unburdened of our membership in the one, holy, Catholic apostolic Church? And who will draw the line for us, since for decades now new teachings have been developed, wholly independent of Rome, which says that contraception is ok, vasectomy a good, tubal ligation, check, abortion…when the situation is right, fine, and Bishops have no business formulating ethical guidelines in accord with the old way? I mean, where do Sr. McBride and Anne and others of us, who protest, then draw the line. Could a child with Downs be aborted? Or how about if we were to discover the baby is autistic, then? Or only low functioning but with Asperger’s they may live. And how about euthanasia, I take it we can make the monetary calculation according to this new teaching as we are able to fund an illness, or not. As far as accountability, who will we look to in order to assure this is consistent with our ethical worldview? Since we regard the teaching authority of bishops and popes as illegitimate, I am wondering how we will develop our beliefs? From Biblical texts?

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:43 PM (EST):

Ann Rice, on a personal note. I have read many of your books. When your husband died I offered Mass for his soul. I enjoyed your book on your return to the Catholic faith. At the time I thought that you would work through some of the issues you still had with Catholic doctrine. I believed that eventually you would accept the fullness of our teachings as you came to understand them better. In retrospect perhaps we did you a disservice. By receiving you back into communion when you still had some major disagreements with de fide doctrines we have the impression that these were negotiable. It would have been better, in hindsight, to encourage you to assist at Mass, but to refrain from Holy Communion until these issues were dealt with. I sincerely hope that you will come home and stay, but not on your terms. It is on the Lord’s terms that we enter his house. We should seek the will of God in all things. I entrust you to Mary, her prayers bring you to her Son.

“As for the past 7 years of abuses, it goes back to my concern how about these things are done, behind closed poor with nothing resembling due process. I am deeply concerned about some of these allegations but I think they ought to be presented and debated publically.”

This should have never been debated publicly because we don’t know all the details. Leaks have occurred precisely to influence public opinion.

“If the hospital is sterilizing willy-nilly, I will support that decision but I want a transparent process.”

Unfortunately, this is a catch-22. You want it to be public but this can easily hidden through the medical privacy laws on hand. The information that has been disseminated by the hospital has been to position it in the best public light. You can be sure they won’t release what is not convenient for them and I can understand this because of all the legal liability involved. And this is why the Bishop is acting in the way he is. The hospital has not been conducting itself under the guidelines of Catholic directives nor does it want to from the apparent lack of transparency except with those things they consider relevant. The Bishop has been forced into this position precisely because of this lack of transparency.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:35 PM (EST):

Carl,

That someone has the authority does not mean that they have judged rightly. People in authority make bad decisions all the time, including bishops. After, you are not Catholic, the second most popular argument seems to be, “the bishops says.” I clearly take very seriously what the bishop says or I would not be having this discussion; however, that does not mean I relinquish all use of my independent thinking and my conscience. The most notable difference between the hospital’s most recent statement and the bishop’s is that the hospital took the type to present a case—a medical and a moral case (They can’t rely on because I said so.). But the bishop’s statement can be summarized in one sentence, “The hospital has refused to recognize my authority.”

Like it or not, that line is not flying as high as it use to. People want to be engaged even as they recognize the person’s right to make the final call.

As for the past 7 years of abuses, it goes back to my concern how about these things are done, behind closed poor with nothing resembling due process. I am deeply concerned about some of these allegations but I think they ought to be presented and debated publically. The bishop can have the final word; he can even be judge, prosecutor, and jury. If the hospital is sterilizing willy-nilly, I will support that decision but I want a transparent process. Now, that’s not Bishop Olmsted’s fault that we have done things this way but it’s opportunity for to start talking about it.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:35 PM (EST):

Carolyn Hyppolite, please note that there were other serious delicts committed over the course of 7 years. The bishop did not do this off the cuff. From what I read, and we don’t have the case file, the hospital violated the ethical directives. They likewise did NOT promise to end all abortions. That is a telling blow to their position. If they were correct morally then why not agree to end abortions, sterilizations, and other such procedures? Why not indeed.

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:27 PM (EST):

Carolyn, the question is actually twofold - was it necessary to remove the placenta, and was the procedure done to remove the placenta actually done in that manner, or in a manner more consistent with an abortion?

Posted by Al on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:25 PM (EST):

I applaud Anne Rice and her courage along with a few others to come in and share their “Ideas” about what the Catholic faith, indeed the Christian Faith, “Should Be”. Some general comments on what I have seen so far from them

1. All emotion, all the time, meaning a complete lack of catechesis, most importantly in the area of what makes a true human being…the integration of The Will, The Mind AND The Heart….not just the heart.
2. A healthy mixture of naivety, ego, and ignorance. Anne and her aging brood are so used to having their thoughts be parroted and amplified by the mainstream media without question they have become “Soft” and “Over-Confident” with their now aging ideas…in fact, so much so, that she and the other gang-members actually believe they can come into a forum like this and win minds with their ridiculous ideas.

In my experience the readership and commentators of this magazine are erudite orthodox Catholics with 10th degree black belts in Orthodox Catholic Apologetics…the kind of Catholics that the mainstream media purposefully give no voice too whatsoever for fear of actually having to deal with intelligent ideas. I can only guess Anne has come in here because she has bought into the cliched and parroted notion that those “Orthodox Traditional-Types” are uneducated, ignorant, neanderthal bigots. I guess she and others now finding out the hard way that they manifestly are not…its been quite thrilling for me to watch people ginsu her emotive-activist-strawman-filled rhetoric with sub-atomic particle laser-like precision.

Anne, I don’t know if you are aware, but the people you are trying to “Educate” are more determined than you are, more educated than you are, and have taken a great many more punches than you have for the faith in your entire life…..much much more.

The Christian Catholic Church will not adopt selfish secular values into their dogmas…there is nothing new about human behavior under the sun and the true defenders of the church are more than fed up with people like you and the others that continue to attack her from the outside and in. Obviously we are willing to fight and you are finding out that the defenses are not insubstantial and indeed that they may even “Sting A Little” aren’t you?

Good for you though…now you know what you have to deal with and like a good little secular pawn-piece, you can now run back to your masters to explain what you have seen so you can draw new battle plans in your selfish-emotional robotic-like stuck-on-infinite-loop crusade to destroy the church and remake her and Jesus in your master’s secular image.

I will pray for you

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:21 PM (EST):

When you receive communion you say “Amen” to the claim that this is the body of Christ and you say proclaim that you are in communion with the members of that body. You are not proclaiming that you agree with every decision your bishop makes. If that were true, Catholicism would be a very tiny, little club, which many people seem to want. I happen to strongly disagree with the fact that the USCCB accepts huge amounts of federal money for example. That does not make me not Catholic. Can you imagine if we required such perfect agreement within our biological families?

I don’t think anybody here has supported abortion. The only disagreement is whether under the circumstances, it was necessary to remove the placenta to save the mother’s life and whether that that was in keeping with the Church’s own standards. I have yet to see a real refutation of the hospital eloquent exposition of the facts and the ethics in this case.

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:17 PM (EST):

@Carolyn

“It is a serious problem that “you are not Catholic” has become a substitute for every argument. Now, everytime someone has a concern about the way things are run, all we need say is, “You are not Catholic.” Again, I ask why the eagerness to push people out or inform them that they are out. Should we not be eagerly trying to figure out how to bring them back home.”

I entirely agree with this. “You are not Catholic” is not an argument, it is an assertion. However, the crucial question here is not “how things are run”, but rather, “what is the truth in morals” according to Catholics as regards this case?

THAT question, necessarily begs the more fundamental question as to just “who” has the authority to say what is and is not “Catholic” teaching in morals. That role would seem to redound to the Catholic Magisterium (the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome). The question is not a subjective one: “who is Catholic and who is not”; but rather an objective question: “What does the Catholic Church teach?” - and concomitantly who gets to decide that question”

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:13 PM (EST):

Many are making a bad analogy between a random person who happens to be a sinner (all of us) and an institution that defies the teachings of the Church on a number of moral issues and has obstinately done so for 7 years. These are two completely different species.

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:00 PM (EST):

@ Anne

“I have suggested and rightly so that your teachings are inconsistent
and hypocritical.”

Perhaps rather than “suggesting” that centuries of moral discussion and thought dating back to Aristotle are simply “inconsistent and hypocritical” you would be better served to actually make a cogent argument to that effect. But that will take us to deep waters concerning the fundamental epistemological and metaphysical basis for deciphering good and evil in the first place.

Diatribes concerning the fact that human beings, including clerics, often fail to act in accord with the moral principles they espouse is hardly a revolutionary discovery. It is the basis of moral principles simpliciter that is at issue. To emote is not to argue.

You say that my representation of your position is a “complete lie”. But your response says otherwise. You seem most offended indeed that “some preset moral standard (read Catholic moral teaching based on natural law and revelation) should ever have the right to trump the decision of “on-site” human beings, whether these be medical advisors or the persons directly affected by moral decision making”

Posted by Barefoot Mommy on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:57 PM (EST):

Hi Carolyn,

Yes, we are all sinners. Yet when we open our mouths to receive our Lord and say “amen” we are agreeing to support the teachings of the Catholic Church, beautifully laid out in the CCC. This hospital chose to not only disagree with Church teachings, but to openly defy them. Actions have consequences, of which the hospital was fully aware. Since the hospital chose to put themselves at odds with the teachings, they should be relieved to no longer call themselves Catholic. As far as the people who support the hospital’s position, their principles ought to be appeased at going to the now secular hospital so they should thank the bishop instead of vilifying him for doing what he was bound to do in obedience to the Church he serves.

Posted by Jay on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:53 PM (EST):

Thank you Bishop Olmsted!

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:49 PM (EST):

Ann, the bishop does have the right and responsibility to determine if an institution or organization in his diocese is “Catholic.” If they are not he does have the right, according to canon law, to issue a decree stating that fact. The Sister who is excommunicated is indeed still a Catholic, but she is under a medicinal penalty. It will be lifted the instant that she repents. While bishops are not infallible in the sense you mean that does not mean that they lack authority or that we do not owe them obedience. In reference to the Sister see: Can. 1331 §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1° to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies of public worship;

2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments ;

3° to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions or acts of governance.

§2 If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1° proposing to act in defiance of the provision of §1, n. 1 is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary

4° cannot validly assume any dignity, office or other function in the Church

5° loses the title to the benefits of any dignity, office, function or pension held in the Church.

Posted by Mark P. Shea on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:47 PM (EST):

Some time back a reader noticed that every Wiccan is never a mere priest or priestess but always a *High* Priest/ess. Similarly, everybody who claims Past Life Regression was always somebody like Cleopatra or some impressive Warrior Chieftain, never some schlub on the Russian steppe who lived and died in obscurity.

Curiously, folks like Anne Rice are *always* St. Francis and Joan of Arc when they spit on some bishop who upholds the obvious teaching of the Church. They are never, even for a moment, haunted by the possibility that it is they who are in error. And though they leave the Church in disgust, they are always perfectly sure that God is still calling them to run it with absolute assurance.

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:44 PM (EST):

Ann, canon law would be hard pressed to find that it is a mothers right to murder her own child. In fact it stresses the right to life from conception to natural death. Abortion is canon law is a delict, a crime. See Can. 1398: A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. There is no wiggle room. You state that in history the Church has worked out complex justifications for killing. Isn’t that what you are doing here?

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:43 PM (EST):

Wondering aloud,

I have actually read everything I could get my hands on about this. I have read the ERD’s standards, and all the hospital’s and bishop’s statement. As for not being Catholic right now, I am concerned that American conservative Catholics seem to think that losing one’s Catholicism is such an easy thing. The devout Catholics I grew up with in Haiti did not spend their time telling everybody they are not Catholic.

I have not had an abortion, I have recently raised money for a pro-life organization, I have gone to confession recently, I went to mass this morning. Sure, I am a sinner but that does not make me not Catholic. Wondering if the bishop made the right decision and thinking that the way these things are done should be changed does not make one not Catholic. It’s not even a sin.

It is a serious problem that “you are not Catholic” has become a subsititute for every argument. Now, everytime someone has a concern about the way things are run, all we need say is, “You are not Catholic.” Again, I ask why the eagerness to push people out or inform them that they are out. Should we not be eagerly trying to figure out how to bring them back home.

Peace,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:42 PM (EST):

Two can play at that game Anne

Catholic dissenters are again and again the victims of their own logic.
Privileging their abstract (and self-made) theological logic, they find themselves
again and again in brutal situations.
Imagine standing over a dying pregnant woman and saying,
“We could save you if you are willing to let us take the innocent life of your child, why worry about something as mundane as the integrity of your soul at a time like this; think of your husband and other children. We could save you
but you will not let us – how selfish. We beg you to sacrifice your soul for a few more years on earth.”
Imagine confusing the souls of the patients of St. Joe’s by indicating that killing an innocent child is licit.
Imagine telling the sick and suffering patients, no, the moral state of one’s soul has nothing to do with the sacrifice of the Mass. Religion and moral relativism go hand in hand. That is - you are free to make it up as you go along.
The Bishop has refused to take a stand upon the principles for which Our Lord Jesus Christ offered His Body and Blood.

Let’s hope there is a brave priest in Phoenix who will follow
his bishop and come to explain the necessity of his actions to the patients.
He can bring the Blessed Sacrament with him to the bedside of each patient.
Let’s hope

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:37 PM (EST):

Wondering Aloud,
you are completely wrong.
There are many Catholics who support the hospital
and disagree with the Bishop.
One does not cease to be Catholic by disagreeing with
one bishop.
Bishops are not infallible.
And Catholicism has never been a monolith.
When Francis of Assisi took aim at the corruption of
his church, he did not cease to be Catholic.
When Joan of Arc testified before the clerics who ultimately
condemned her, she did not cease to be Catholic.
All Catholic are bound to follow their conscience, just
like everyone else.
You have no right or authority to say that
Sr. McBride or the hospital are not Catholic.

Posted by Fr. J on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:36 PM (EST):

As a canon lawyer, given what I have read, the bishop acted properly. See canon 216: Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

The hospital committed a serious delict and refused to repent. Direct abortion is never morally licit. Those who try to parse our moral theology to permit it are in error. He gave them every opportunity to be heard and to conform to the teachings of the Church.

Dr. Peters, a professor of canon law, notes several issues:

1. The problems in regard to compliance with Catholic moral teaching at Catholic Healthcare West institutions are apparently not limited to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. Significant problems at CHW’s Chandler Regional Hospital in Arizona were flagged by Olmsted seven years ago (!), to no avail.

2. The problems at St. Joseph’s go well beyond a single instance of abortion (as terrible as that was, per 1983 CIC 1398 and CCC 2270-2272). Apparently, St. Joseph’s is, and has been for some time, formally (i.e., intentionally) cooperating in contraceptive counseling and services, including voluntary sterilizations, and in multiple abortions.

3. The excommunication of Sr. Margaret McBride for her role in an abortion at St. Joseph’s in 2009 was formally declared by Olmsted in a private exchange with the religious.

The bishop acted in conformity with the code of canon law and our theology. It is the hospital that is at fault. There must be truth in advertising, if you want to use the term Catholic then you must be Catholic. May St. Joseph bring them to conversion, he must weep at an institution named in his honor has been murdering innocent children.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:34 PM (EST):

Carl has made this statement apparently referring to me:

“She is offended that some preset moral standard (read Catholic moral teaching based on natural law and revelation) should ever have the right to trump the decision of “on-site” human beings, whether these be medical advisors or the persons directly affected by moral decision making. “

This is a complete lie.
I have attempted to draw attention more than once in these blogs
to the fact that your belief system has spilled ink for centuries over
how soldiers might fight in wars that involve the death of innocent
persons.
I have suggested and rightly so that your teachings are inconsistent
and hypocritical.
Please do not try to reduce complex arguments to simplistic ideas.

The truth is not served by distorting another person’s position.

I suggest you read the history of your church.
I suggest you examine the present Catholic attitude towards
American Catholics who enter voluntary military service to
fight in foreign wars where there are massive innocent civilian causalities
all the time.
I suggest you read Catholic history, regarding the
taking of innocent lives by Catholics in the past.
Your church has easily worked out complex justifications
for all kinds of killing.
It canonized Thomas More who burnt five people alive for heresy.

It applies a rigid abstract standard only to pregnant women
when the killing involves the unborn.
This is hypocrisy.
it is a double standard.
It is worth investigating and pondering.
Canon law could easily work out complex
arguments to support the “right” of a dying mother
to defend herself against a failing pregnancy.
And I suspect it will do so in the future.
For now, I ask you to be honest about my position, even
if you do not agree with it.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:20 PM (EST):

Do we know that the baby was dismembered? If the baby was dismembered, was this done to kill or to removed an already dead body?

Peace,
CKG

Posted by Wondering Aloud on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:18 PM (EST):

While I am sure this is a tough decision for the bishop; for the people who are writting in claiming “I am a Catholic” and then siding with the hospital administration I have some bad news for you. No you are not a Catholic at the moment. You are not in communion with Christ’s church. Perhaps you need to investigate the issue a little further and pray about it. You are in error as far as the teachings of the church are concerned. The bishop is not.

Posted by Jose Bague on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:15 PM (EST):

Anne:

This is not a question of abstract theological reasoning. I do not have to be Catholic to know that the dismemberment of a fetus is an abortion, plain and simple. That is what happened in this case. This was not just a question of removing a placenta.

Posted by Sarah on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:14 PM (EST):

I’m sorry, at 11 weeks a D and C does not require anything like dismembering the baby. I’ve known women who have to have a D & C *after* giving birth to a healthy baby—simply to remove tissue (placenta, etc) that was left in the womb after the baby was born. There is a healthy baby on the outside—and the medical staff performs a D&C—without dismembering anyone.

Posted by Erin Manning on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:12 PM (EST):

I’d like to propose the following hypothetical:

What if a woman this same age, with four children at home and a congenital heart condition instead of pulmonary hypertension (but not pregnant), were rushed into the hospital? What if she were told that she needed a heart transplant right now, that not to have one would mean her death—and, as luck would have it, a homeless man slowly dying of cirrhosis of the liver in a room down the hall was her blood type and a perfect match for the heart transplant—but no other healthy heart was available, and going on a list and waiting would surely mean her death?

Come on, the world might say—the man’s dying, and he’s pretty worthless. Should we really have to wait until he dies naturally to take his heart and save this young woman with the four kids at home? Besides, he hasn’t signed a donor card—we’ll have to take his heart without his permission anyway, so is it really a big deal to hasten his death by a week or so? We’re talking about saving a life, here. What sense does it make for *both* of them to die, when we can save her by just hurrying his death up a little?

If we object to this analogy and say, “Oh, but you’re talking about an adult man who is viable on his own (if only for a little while) not about a fetus,” then we’ve admitted that we assign value to human life based on factors like age and condition of dependency—and once we start doing that, it’s a pretty short trip to the horror of the commodification of all human life.

Now, I realize that the abortion defenders on this thread are doing exactly that: they see the life of the child as disposable compared to that of the mother, and are outraged that anyone would think that both lives have the same intrinsic and infinite value—because, after all, the fetus is small and dependent on her mother, so clearly we should be able to kill her without remorse. But that is not how the Church sees human life: the Church sees every human life as having infinite intrinsic value. When we argue against that principle, we are accepting a finite and utilitarian definition of the worth of human life—and doing that has historically always led to the greatest of evils.

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:08 PM (EST):

According to the Commonweal PDF, at 7.5 weeks of pregnancy, “The pulmonologist counseled her that her safest course of action was to end the pregnancy.” She declined the abortion. The next entry in the report states that 4 weeks later, she was seen in a life-threatening situation.

So, what happened after she declined the abortion at 7.5 weeks? The the doctor offer her an ALTERNATIVE plan of treatment, or was it simply “my way - abortion - or the highway”?

It seems clear to me she was NOT offered any alternative treatment, and was simply left to her own devices for the next 4 weeks. This is certainly consistent with how Medicaid patients are treated by the medical establishment - the cheapest and easiest course of action is recommended, and if the patient refuses, the heck with her.

I know this because I was at one time a Medicaid patient. I have also had excellent health insurance. And, the difference in doctor’s attitudes and treatment of the poor and indigent compared to the “paying” customer is massive.

So, apparently, the ONLY course of action for this poor woman was abortion. She was sent home at 7.5 weeks with no treatment plan at all!!!

If we adopt the principle that it is licit to kill an innocent human being to save the life of another human being, then can we kill a poor man who has a heart a rich man needs? Can we kill the child of a poor man so the child of a rich man can have his lungs?

Who else can we kill that another may live?

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:06 PM (EST):

Caroyln and Ann,

The Bishop of a Diocese has absolute rights to allow/disallow mass to be publicly celebrated within his diocese. This is a part of Canon law.

Ann, you are again ignoring that the removal of the title Catholic is not due to a single incident, but due to a long-standing disobedience in regards to the teachings of the Church.

Posted by Jose Bague on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:04 PM (EST):

Rachel:

I agree. The Hospital dismembered the unborn child. This was not just a case of removing the placenta. There is no justification for this action.

Anne:

I am all for women receiving the proper attention in the emergency room. Nobody is saying that we should just stand around and let this poor woman die. However, I just do not agree with dismembering an unborn child as part of a medical procedure to stabilize the patient.

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:03 PM (EST):

Actually, Bishop Olmsted specifically mentions ERD 47, which deals with these issues. He just states that the requirements of ERD 47 have not been met, thus the other medical facts are not relevant. If you’d like to argue whether or not ERD 47 has been met, you’re welcome to, but until then you’re just making things up.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:01 PM (EST):

First, is there a reason why mass can only be celebrated at a Catholic hospital? Mass is celebrated in airports, which are surely not Catholic. And there are catholic patients and employees at non-catholic hospitals who might appreciate the celebration of the mass.

Peace
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Carl on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:00 PM (EST):

The Bottom Line

Carolyn Hyppolite wrote:

“But that does not mean that the hospital acted maliciously. If they actually believed that the threat was immediate. That the death of the child was certain and that the mother’s death would soon follow than they are right to try to save the mother’s life. Perhaps, in hindsight, they were wrong and they need to develop alternative methods to deal with this situation but that does not mean that they acted wrongly given what the believed the facts to be.”

Of course they did not act maliciously as to intention. But IF they dismembered the fetus (rather than removal of the placenta or some other indirect procedure which had a causally simultaneous effect of fetal death); then it DOES mean that they acted wrongly - i.e - in an objectively evil way. Their intentions may have been good, but IF they directly killed the fetus, then they directly chose an evil means to achieve a laudable end. Given the complexity and immediacy of the situation, the most charitable approach to the staff (assuming that the fetus was directly killed) is to assume that the staff was not properly catechized in Catholic moral theology - which seems to be the Bishop’s initial position given his catechetical recommendation.

The bottom line question is this: “is it EVER, under any circumstance, permissible to perform an intrinsically evil act in order to secure a good outcome?” That is where the rubber meets the road in all high-level discussions in moral theology. The Catholic Church officially says NO (see Veritatis Splendor). Those who answer “yes” to that question (no matter how restrictive the qualifications), go the way of “consequentialism”, “proportionalism”, fundamental option”, Anne Rice, etc. We should just be up front about this. There is a DIRECT, non-resolvable conflict between the Catholic Church and most all other players in the field of morals and ethics on this point.

Given the case under discussion, the doctors and staff should have employed all means available to save the mother’s life, EXCEPT any means which is intrinsically and always evil - such as infanticide. No amount of probable certainty about the survival or death of either the mother or the child justifies the intrinsically evil act of intentionally and directly killing the innocent child. Such an approach places the ultimate decision regarding life and death within the orbit of human minds which make that judgment based on personal criteria and evaluation rather than on objective moral truth claims.

This is fundamentally what Anne Rice and other Catholic dissenters insist upon. She is offended that some preset moral standard (read Catholic moral teaching based on natural law and revelation) should ever have the right to trump the decision of “on-site” human beings, whether these be medical advisors or the persons directly affected by moral decision making. But THAT is the rub. The Catholic Church stands for the principle that conscience is NOT infallible, nor the final arbiter of concrete moral action. Rather, human conscience is subject to objective moral norms, which are knowable. Human beings have a fundamental obligation to seek the truth in morals and form their consciences accordingly; not create the truth in morals. As Newman famously said: “Conscience has rights because it first has duties”.

And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that this holds true for all human beings everywhere in all times - that is the fundamental difference between a claim to objective moral truth as opposed to moral relativism. When once it is allowed that an intrinsically evil act can in “some” cases be justified (no matter how tortured such cases scenarios may be); there is no way to consistently establish just “how tortured” a case must be before such an allowance is made. Yes, that IS a slippery slope argument. But if one insists that such a slipper slope objection has no validity, then I would simply say that such a person is a historical and anthropological fool.

This issue of “ends justifies the means” has been the primary point of departure in ethics for centuries. What if the hospital had attempted every means to save the mother’s life, while refusing (based on objective moral principles) to use infanticide as one of those means? Maybe the mother would have lived, perhaps not.

What if she had died? Well then, on Christian principles, neither she nor the hospital staff would have engaged in a morally grave act, hence preserving integrity - indeed heroic integrity - in their souls. An integrity of soul which is of inestimably higher value that the mere continuance of temporal/material human existence (“what does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he lose his soul”?).

To be Christians (whether Catholic or otherwise), we must value integrity of soul over expediency - even if that costs us everything.

On this issue, the Catholic Church IS opposed to the world, have no doubt about it. There is a line in the sand, and we may as well just be frank about it and admit that a battle exists - which must be won or lost. Anne Rice and Sr. Mcbride, and many others of a similar moral and religious persuasion, may indeed be well intentioned, but at a fundamental level they resist the notion that there is any higher authority than human conscience regarding such issues. They know, and so does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, that the two respective approaches to morals in human society are on a collision course - and at the most foundational level - there can be no peaceful compromise.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:00 PM (EST):

Catholics are again and again the victims of their own logic.
Privileging their abstract theological logic, they find themselves
again and again in brutal situations.
Imagine standing over a dying pregnant woman and saying,
“Sorry, but you must die with your dying fetus. We could save
you but we will not. We insist that you must die.”
Imagine denying the patients of St. Joe’s a Christmas Mass.
Imagine telling the sick and suffering patients, no, there will
be no Mass for you here this Christmas. We cannot do it.
The Bishop has taken the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ
out of the hospital.
Let’s hope there is a brave priest in Phoenix who will follow
a different sort of logic and come to say Mass for the patients.
He can bring the Blessed Sacrament with him to the chapel.
Let’s hope.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:58 PM (EST):

You’re writing on the citation, Everett. Read Bishop Olmsted at the top of this blog entry. Doesn’t matter if it’s rape, incest or the health of the mother. He views all of these as a violation of the ERD’s, contrary to the ERD’s themselves. He has, effectively, changed policy here and that’s what this whole thing has been about since the very beginning.

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:53 PM (EST):

Abscissio, please provide a citation where Bishop Olmsted states that “no matter what the facts, the mother must die.”

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:48 PM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias, no we do not have her chart. However, as I have continuously argued, the Bishop has announced that no matter what the facts, the mother must die. That is irrefutable. So, we can use the facts above as they are presented as an example of a hypothetical situation without getting into a debate of the facts themselves. We can, instead, focus on policy and how that has changed. Bishop Olmsted, himself, has thumbed his nose at the ERD’s.

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:47 PM (EST):

Anne, this is not about a single case. It is about a longstanding practice of St. Joseph’s to offer procedures and referrals that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, as mentioned in Bishop Olmsted’s letter. If St. Joseph’s and CHW wish to continue to perform these actions, then it is not the Bishop separating them from the Church - instead it is their own actions that separates themselves from the Church.

Posted by SteveH on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:42 PM (EST):

Does anyone here ever hit the “submit” button and actually believe that “this post will once and for all convince everyone”? No? Me either. I think Catholics just like to fight.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:30 PM (EST):

Apparently, Bishop Olmsted’s condemnation of St. Joseph’s Hospital
for saving the life of a dying mother, means that the Bishop is now
depriving the Catholic patients and staff of the hospital of their
Christmas Mass.
Catholics who grew up like I did, going to Midnight Mass, know
how important the Christmas Mass is.
Perhaps some brave priest will come forward to say Mass for
the patients of St. Joe’s and those staff members on duty.
Let’s hope and pray that this happens.
A brave missionary might come to say Mass for them and
offer them the Eucharist, which means so very much to the faithful.

Posted by Rachel on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:24 PM (EST):

If the procedure were simply to remove the placenta, this could have been morally licit. However, a D&C requires the dismemberment of the fetus directly and therefore is not morally licit.

I don’t think there’s much argument that the hospital should have tried to preserve the life of the mother. The argument is whether the manner in which this was attempted was licit. Again, a D&C would not be licit here.

This is the problem. It is not complete and we are not qualified to comment regarding the medical realities, yet there’s all this argumentation that really doesn’t make sense because everybody’s taking sides on what they think is “solid” as you’ve stated. It’s normal to expect the hospital to defend itself. And it’s it absolutely within the Bishop’s right to defend the Church. The reality is we don’t know the circumstances and yet we’re arguing as if we do. We also don’t know what the Bishop knows because we’re not the ones communicating with the hospital. The Bishop and the hospital have been in communication and this is an established fact. We’re not in that loop. To take sides with one or the other is premature at best because now we’re being selective on what we believe the truth to be without really knowing it. This is why this is a scandal because a rupture has occurred and this will not heal until the truth prevails. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this truth will come out because of all the legalities involved. All I can say about the report and having many doctors within my family is that you can’t examine or assess any person’s medical history without seeing the COMPLETE chart. Any doctor worth their reputation will tell you this.

Posted by Everett on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:58 PM (EST):

The medical history of the patient isn’t the important part. The important part is whether the procedure was primarily an abortion (intrinsically evil), or primarily a procedure done to remove the placenta, which unfortunately results in the death of the child. If the first, there are no situations in which it is acceptable. If the second, then the principle of double effect comes into play and a reasonable argument can be made that it is an acceptable procedure. Given my lack of medical knowledge, I do not feel qualified to provide a thorough analysis of what exactly the procedure (labeled in the report as a D&C) entails, other than knowing that it is one way in which abortions are performed.

Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:57 PM (EST):

@ Anne Rice

God bless you, Anne. I apologize on behalf of the people of the church in which you were raised who have insulted you here. You must say what the Holy Spirit lays on you.

“Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophet.” Luke 6:22-23

Merry Christmas, Ms. Rice.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:51 PM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias,

I think the information that we have been given is as solid as we can expect. Even if we were given the medical chart, most of us can’t read it, it would have to be interpreted. There is no reason to beileve that the hospital has been dishonest in their very detailed presentation of the facts. If we are not allowed to comment because we have not seen the chart, than neither should the bishop because he’s not allowed to look at it either.

Unfortunately the report cited above is NOT the COMPLETE medical chart. The patient’s medical chart will NOT become public because it is protected by medical privacy laws. This is the problem with an analysis of this type, you have to take their word for it without a third party analysis by other medical professionals who are capable of doing such an analysis into the condition of these persons. The cited theologian is NOT a doctor and was probably put in a situation that’s become untenable in the sense she really can’t defend herself because she’s probably not at liberty to discuss this without breaking any legal confidentiality. For people to stubbornly insist on these facts as being complete is not genuine. We don’t have ALL the facts, we just have arguments.

Posted by Christine Flowers on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:38 PM (EST):

I am disgusted by the actions of this so-called “Catholic” hospital, and extremely proud of Bishop Olmstead, who is standing with Christ and on the side of the angels. St. Joseph is the patron saint of families as well as fathers, and it is despicable that his good name should be sullied by the acts of people who put money (and the whining of the reproductive rights crowd) above their sacred obligation to the unborn, and to one of the few institutions in the world that fights for their integrity and rights (our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) As a woman, I am outraged that this hospital would cater to the selfish and self-centered demands of people who care more about convenience that character, more about ‘freedom’ than faith, more about “living high” than life. God bless and keep the Bishop, and to those who work or seek treatment at St. Joseph’s, sorry that you have to place your conscience on automatic pilot.

Posted by Ran Valerhon on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:29 PM (EST):

Amber - bless you thrice for your love and Christ-minded service to your fellow humans. You are worthy.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:22 PM (EST):

Steve,

I am not saying that the bishop is right in this case. I have read the hospital’s defense, especially, their medical defense and I find it persuasive. I just want to be fair to everybody. I am sure the bishop means well and wants to serve God. I am also sure that the hospital wants to save lives and do good.

I am concerned about these new allegations. Particularly, this mercy care situtation. But the hospital has not responded to them publically; they have just been revealed. As I have said many times, I think there should be a transparent process which allows persons and institutions to present their case to the Catholic community before they are condemned.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by SteveH on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:20 PM (EST):

Jesus said to shake the dust from your sandals and move on to the next town.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:09 PM (EST):

SteveH, you can lead a horse to water. We have to try.

Posted by SteveH on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:07 PM (EST):

Carolyn, earnest people can still be wrong.
Abscissio, you’re barking up the wrong tree bringing facts to this gang.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:59 PM (EST):

For those of you who refuse to read the report linked several times above, here is the clinical history of the mother.

I. The Clinical History and Events

A 27-year old woman with a history of moderate but well-controlled pulmonary hypertension was seen on October 12, 2009, at her pulmonologist’s office for worsening symptoms of her disease. The results of a routine pregnancy test revealed that in spite of her great efforts to avoid it, she had conceived and was then seven-and-a-half weeks pregnant. The pulmonologist counseled her that her safest course of action was to end the pregnancy, since in the best case, pregnancy with pulmonary hypertension carries a 10-15% risk of mortality for a pregnant woman trying to carry to term, and because of the severity of her disease, her own prospects were closer to 50-50. Importantly, the woman, a Catholic with four children, decided not to terminate.

On November 3, 2009, the woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center with worsening symptoms. At this time, the woman was eleven weeks pregnant. A cardiac catheterization revealed that the woman now had “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output”; in another part of the record, a different physician confirmed “severe, life-threatening pulmonary hypertension,” “right heart failure,” and “cardiogenic shock.” The chart noted that she
had been informed that her risk of mortality “approaches 100%,” is “near 100%,” and is “close to 100%” if she were to continue the pregnancy. The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”

Pulmonary hypertension is a type of high blood pressure that affects only the arteries in the lungs and the right side of the heart. It begins when the arteries and capillaries in the lung become narrowed, blocked, or destroyed, making it harder for blood to flow through the lungs, raising the pressure in those arteries. One consequence of this restricted flow
is that the heart’s lower right chamber (the right ventricle) has to work harder to pump blood into the lungs, which eventually causes the heart muscle to weaken and fail.

Pulmonary hypertension is a serious illness that becomes progressively worse; it is not curable but it can be treated, easing the symptoms; it is sometimes fatal.1
The normal physiologic changes accompanying pregnancy—increased blood volume (40%), increased cardiac output (30-50% by 25 weeks), and slightly decreased systemic blood pressure (10-20% by 28 weeks)—exacerbate pulmonary hypertension, leading to the increased risk of mortality for the mother.2

In the current case, the patient’s attempt to continue the pregnancy in order to nurture the child’s life led to two negative physiological outcomes: the failure of the right side of the patient’s heart and cardiogenic shock. Failure of the right side of the patient’s heart
means that the heart can no longer pump blood into the lungs so that the blood can be oxygenated. Without oxygenated blood, the body’s organs and tissues quickly begin to die. Cardiogenic shock is “a state in which the heart has been damaged so much that it is unable to supply enough blood to the organs of the body.”3

In cardiogenic shock, cardiac output decreases and one begins to see evidence of tissue hypoxia—lack of oxygenation of the patient’s tissues and major organs. Clinical criteria for cardiogenic shock are “sustained hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg for at least 30 min) and a
reduced cardiac index (<2.2 L/min/m2) in the presence of elevated pulmonary capillary occlusion pressure (>15 mm Hg).” In addition, visible signs of cardiogenic shock can be observed at the bedside, including “hypotension and clinical signs of poor tissue oxygenation, which include oliguria [low urine output], cyanosis [blue coloration of the skin], cool extremities, and altered mentation.”4

There is no cure for pulmonary hypertension. In this case, however, two additional pathologies emerged—the pathology of right side heart failure and cardiogenic shock. These pathologies were immediately caused by the physiologic changes accompanying pregnancy that exacerbated the underlying pathology of pulmonary hypertension. The physiologic changes accompanying pregnancy at ten weeks initiated the emergency situation. These changes not only put the mother’s life at risk. Rather, they put the mother’s life in peril.

Moreover, the life of the fetus was equally in peril due to the pathologies of right heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Oxygen delivered to the placenta and fetus is dependent on maternal arterial oxygen content and uterine blood flow. Decrease in maternal cardiac
output and decrease in blood oxygenation can adversely affect fetal oxygenation; the uterus and placenta number among the organs becoming hypoxic during this crisis.

Therefore, on November 5, 2009, mother and fetus were both in the process of dying. Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.

There was, however, a chance that the life of the mother could be saved. There was one possibility for treating and reversing the pathology of the emergent conditions of right heart failure and cardiogenic shock. The intervention for treating this pathology was to eliminate the cause of the increased blood volume and increased demand for cardiac output. The cause of this increased blood flow and cardiac demand was not the fetus but
rather the placenta—an organ in its own right. This requires clarification.

Until about nine weeks into a pregnancy, the ovaries are responsible for the production of progesterone, which maintains the pregnancy in the uterus and causes the increase in blood volume cited above. At about ten weeks, the placenta is the organ that takes over this work, becoming a shared organ between the mother and the child. In this case, having reached week eleven, the placenta was producing the physiological changes that imperiled the mother’s and child’s lives. No organ, however, exists in a vacuum. The human body is a complex and carefully balanced network. In this case, the normal functioning of an organ (the placenta) within a diseased network (of pulmonary arteries) created a lethal situation. Importantly, although in one respect the placenta was functioning ‘normally,’ it was also functioning pathologically in two ways. First, once the placenta initiated its normal function at week ten, a crisis was created. Second, once the patient entered cardiogenic shock, the placenta also became hypoxic. In these two ways, then, the placenta not only initiated a threat to the mother’s life; it also became the immediate/presenting cause of the inevitably fatal threat to the fetus.
These facts are important to establish because the claim has been made that the hospital sought primarily to end the life of the fetus as the means to saving the mother’s life.

This, however, is physiologically inaccurate. It is likely that in this case as in many cases of natural fetal demise, the death of the fetus in se would have had no physiologic effect on the mother. In many cases of fetal demise, the pregnancy itself continues; fetal death is often not detected for weeks or months, although the pregnancy itself continues to
proceed and develop because the hormones required for sustaining and advancing the pregnancy come not from the fetus but from the placenta.
Based on these facts, the Ethics Committee at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center was asked for a determination of whether or not the intervention to address the placental issue via a D&C would be morally appropriate according to Catholic teaching. Per their reading of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (4th edition) and their understanding of the Catholic moral tradition, the Ethics Committee determined that the intervention would not be considered a direct abortion. They therefore approved the intervention, which was carried out on November 5, 2009.

God’s Truth is timeless and beyond our fallible reasoning. It is not dictated by the whims of popular culture. Place your anchor on the Truth and pray for those whose babble distorts and detracts. The Truth will set us all free.

Posted by SteveH on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:05 PM (EST):

Wow, Jose. The hospital should’ve hired you for their moral analysis. You sound like such an expert on all aspects of this case.

Posted by THERESE60640 on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:03 PM (EST):

I seem to have missed any posts addressing the FACTS of the final issue that lead to all of this - an abortion of an 11 week-old child supposedly necessary because of the mother’s pulmonary hypertension.
In my 32 years experience as a high risk labor and delivery nurse in a HUGE midwestern hospital, a case like this would have been treated conservatively: treat the mother’s hypertension until the fetus is viable (23-24 weeks), deliver and send the baby to the Special Care Nursery. The bishop addresses these issues (ERD45, 47).
SAFE HEALTHCARE most likely gave way to CHEAPER HEALTHCARE because St. Joseph’s Hospital saved themselves a ton of money in SCN costs!!!!

Posted by Jose Bague on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 9:49 AM (EST):

For the record, the law does not require St. Joseph Hospital to perform so called emergency abortions. Just because the ACLU says so does not make it so. The ACLU is not a source of law but merely an advocacy group. Please read 42 USC section 1395dd and 42 CFR sect 482.13. The law only requires 1) hospitals to provide an appropriate medical screening to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition exists; and 2) necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor for both the patient and the unborn child. An abortion is not needed to “stabilize” a patient. If anything, St. Joseph Hospital technically broke this law because it did not stabilize the medical condition of the unborn child.

The ACLU’s statement is misleading. First they say that Catholic Hospitals are breaking the law but then ask that “emergency reproductive services” be understood within the interpretation of the law. This means that as of today, the law has not been interpreted to require Catholic Hospitals to perform emergency abortions.

Finally, I read the moral analysis report from M. Therese Lysaught posted on the Commonweal blog. Ms. Lysaught was contracted and paid as an “expert” by the Hospital. This is not an unbiased report. Ms. Lysaught states in her report that the Hospital did not perform a “direct” abortion since the surgery was focused on removing the women’s placenta. However, she then says that the fetus was dismembered. Despite Ms. Lysaught’s clever play on words, a dismemberment of an unborn child is a direct abortion, period.

45 cases is hardly a well studied treatment option, you need a minimum of a few thousand.

In an area that boasts a 50-60% mortality rate (when in 2nd and 3rd trimesters, not 1st), and in a case where these women were told they were at high risk of dying, 45 out of 45 may not considered an “official” study.

.

Must people wait until 1000 mothers and babies have been saved to look closer at what Dr. Zwicke is doing and try it? How many doctors have thought to give the aggressive fluid reduction treatement immediately following birth to those mothers who wanted to chance it for the sake of their babies, but then died?

.

Doctors looking closer at what Dianne Zwicke is doing could help increase survival rates among such mothers, who despite the odds against them, decide to proceed with the pregnancy.

.

That is why I put a link up to Zwicke’s presentation. If doctors keep things the same way, mortality rate among women in 2nd and 3rd trimester (not first), with pulmonary hypertension, they will never see anything better in survival rate.

.

Like Albert Einstein said (paraphrased): You can’t solve problems with the same thinking that created them.

.

In a like manner, you can’t improve on survival rates as long as you don’t change anything you are doing and cling to abortion as the best option.
.

What if doctors using her approach over the next 10 years have a 95% success rate with 1000 mothers who decided to take a chance for the sake of their babies.

.
I pity the poor mother at the center of this who obviously did not want an abortion, but was convinced it was the only way to save her life. While there is plenty to suggest a high mortality rate at 2nd and 3rd trimesters, I still cannot find anything that suggests a 1st trimester abortion will immediately lower blood pressure related to PH, thus saving the life of the mother. I also still think that the more likely scenario is that the hospital felt it was saving the life of the mother down the road when she would have entered a phase with higher mortality. The hospital simply says it did this to save the life of the mother, but does not say with specificity that the procedure was needed to save the life of the mother right then and there, as opposed to months down the road. Someone doesn’t have to lie, but they can simply omit certain facts that change our understanding of the story. I don’t believe we have all the facts from St. Josephs.

Posted by Anthony Rowe on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 8:45 AM (EST):

Abortion is always evil.

Posted by Paul on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 7:20 AM (EST):

Anne Rice is correct in stating that it is not a choice between one life and the other. However the person who stated that it is a choice between killing one or killing two is incorrect. It would be rather a choice between *letting two die* and killing one to save the other.

If killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong or otherwise always forbidden, then there’s no circumstance in the world that is going to change that.

If there is a true, objective morality—and there is—then objective moral laws are kind of like the laws of physics. They can’t change. This is going to hold regardless of what moral system one subscribes to even utilitarianism. Utilitarianism itself gives rise to situations where the moral choice is in some way unpalatable. So this is not a problem unique to one system of morality.

Our desires are good things. But desires are not the best guide to morality. Since morality concerns truth, the nature of reality, ultimately it is something that can be understood in the intellect. It’s a truth that can be seen and reasoned to.

Consequentialism is misguided. Morality is not primarily about achieving certain results or goods; it is a way of being and relating to God and the goods that God has placed in creation. I would argue that the way we are to relate to the good of human life, even if it is undeveloped and even if it is dying, is to have an awe or respect for it as something God has brought into being over which we have no authority. We don’t have authority over human life because even at an underdeveloped stage it is still human life and thus even if not already having the image of God—intellect and will—ordered to having it or being in the community of human beings who do have it. Even if personhood did not begin at conception, the morality of abortion would not change; it would still be wrongful taking of sacred human life.

Human life is not primarily something humans have brought into being. It is something God has brought into being and we can see even without the Bible that God has given human life a sacred end or purpose inasmuch as humans individually and as a community can come to know and love God and each other. A person may be born with a severe mental handicap that makes him unable to exercise reason—but that person is still a member of the human community which God has called into existence. The same is true of the fetus or embryo. So when personhood begins is not relevant. The embryo is a member or associated with the human community God has called into existence in a way such that we have no authority to overturn that moral order.

So this is a matter of natural law. It is not only Catholic hospitals that should have the right to obey the natural law. Every man and woman and all hospitals should have the right to obey the natural law.

About “imposing” beliefs. This is not a religious belief. I am not even Catholic though I am Christian. This is a moral law that is binding on all humans. A religion or a lack thereof cannot change human nature, it cannot change the moral order that God has built into human nature and the human community.

One could make the case that even though abortion is always and everywhere wrong that it is not prudent for the State to enforce a prohibition on it. But that’s a separate question. I happen to believe that it makes sense for abortion to be prohibited with some some manner of enforcement, but even if I was wrong in that belief, I would still be right in the belief that abortion is always and everywhere wrong. The former belief depends on the latter, but the latter does not depend on the former.

However since the subject is brought up, let’s address it. Surely Anne Rice is not saying that the law ought to be devoid of morality. I don’t know how such a thing would even be possible. Our ideas of justice inform our laws regarding sentencing, presumption of innocence, the social safety net and the like. Perhaps Anne Rice is saying that only certain areas of morality ought to inform the law. There may be some truth to that in that the law is concerned with the common good of society. But human fetuses are part of the common good of society. They are not some alien beings on which society sits in judgment; they are as I have explained already part of or associated with the human community. And even if one were successful in arguing that abortion in these rare circumstances—though still seriously evil—ought to be tolerated by the law, that would still mean that the vast majority of abortions ought to be enjoined by the law. Or, perhaps Anne Rice is saying that only morality that can be discerned apart from religious dogma should inform society—well that’s exactly what natural law is as I’ve explained. Or perhaps she is saying something else.

But Anne Rice is right that this is not a “housekeeping” matter. It is about obedience to the moral law. It is also evidently given the bishop’s action about the great good of the soul of the sister in question. The good of the souls of all those who cooperated in this abortion are also at stake. It is about how we conceive ourselves to be. When we are faced with a choice between obeying the moral law and the loss of a life, we are not only faced with the choice between avoiding evil and doing evil but always between doing good and doing evil. Any heroic act that chooses life is a choice of a great good. In this case choosing life would not have resulted in a life saved, but the good involved is in our very orientation to the moral law by which we are oriented to God who is all good.

Again morality is not about what we achieve; it’s about who we are.

Posted by Erin Manning on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:27 AM (EST):

Anne, Sr. McBride may be respected, admired, a good person generally, etc. I don’t know her personally, of course.

But some have said in this thread that the hospital (including Sister McBride) were aware that this was not a “double effect” situation. That is, they were aware that what they were being asked to condone was the gravely morally evil act of abortion, that is, the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life. They chose to condone that act.

I find it difficult to believe that a Roman Catholic nun was not aware of the difference between a morally licit act (such as a double-effect situation in which the treatment of a disease indirectly led to the death of the unborn child, where the child’s death was neither willed nor desired for its own sake) and a gravely morally evil one. Frankly, it makes me wonder what her order teaches about the sanctity of human life, though of course charity requires me to suppose the deficiencies are Sister’s own and not those of her order.

I also find it difficult to believe that a woman suffering from pulmonary—not gestational—hypertension was magically cured of it merely by having her child aborted; as others have pointed out, at this early stage of gestation the pregnancy was not the main threat to this woman’s life, and her pulmonary hypertension would have continued to be exactly the same problem after the abortion as before it. Without access to the medical records we will probably never know exactly why the hospital suddenly felt it so necessary for the unborn baby to be killed.

Yet, without those records, many are comfortable saying that the woman would assuredly have died without the abortion, that abortion *must* be justified if a woman’s life is at stake, etc. The reality is that the principle remains as it always has been: it is always wrong directly and intentionally to take the life of an innocent human being. That doesn’t mean that anyone wanted the woman to die, of course. But it does mean realizing that God is the author of all human life, and that to Him, and to Him alone, belongs the power to end the lives of all innocent human beings. Condoning even one murder is the beginning of moral insanity.

Posted by j.c.s. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 6:14 AM (EST):

@Diane.
I assume you know much about pulmonary hypertension, and you can argue as much as you like about the timing of when a fetus exacerbates the issue.
But maybe you missed the fact that a single pathological entity does not present itself in a definitive manner, and i can tell you of a long list of common medical conditions that may present itself in surprising ways even when well studied over many decades. 45 cases is hardly a well studied treatment option, you need a minimum of a few thousand.
More importantly, the poor lady was reportedly deteriorating to a critical or near critical point when the abortion was performed. Therapy for pulmonary hypertension takes time to titrate to proper efficacy. Furthermore, her poor state can be relatively well concluded to be due to fetal burden, 11 weeks or not, especially since she reportedly improved after.
I’m also pretty sure the doctors at CHW St Joes are quite well versed as to the options available to the lady and chose the best course of action

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:25 AM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias, there’s a heavy tone of condemnation here. Ms. Rice has been held up for public ridicule, taunted and jeered at. It is childish and inappropriate.

Have you read the analysis written by the Marquette theologian? Bishop Olmsted was the one who requested it. It gives very specific information as to her medical condition, including blood oxygen levels. As Sarah stated above, the baby was dying. The mother was dying.

Whether or not the ERD’s were being violated really doesn’t go to Sr. McBride’s case or to that of the pregnant mother, in this instant case or all other women in similar situations. I’m here because of them, as I believe Ms. Rice is too. How they have been treated in this pitched battle between two institutions is absolutely horrifying. I have very little compassion for institutions, other than how they serve individuals. I have overwhelming compassion for people, particularly women and children.

What many of you fail to realize because you are only skimming the articles, probably not reading the press releases, the report or letters, is that this mother was on Medicaid. I am a rabid advocate for the poor and access to quality healthcare. Bishop Olmsted is specifically targeting the Mercy Care Plan at St. Joseph’s which serves the poor, disabled and elderly. While many of you may believe that Medicaid patients can go anywhere to get service, that is no longer true. Private hospitals will not accept them. St. Joseph’s Hospital does. In the Southwest, Medicaid patients often have to travel hundreds of miles to the only doctors remaining who will accept Medicaid. Many cannot, so, even though they have healthcare coverage, it isn’t accepted anywhere. It is a crisis for the poor.

And, once again, I reiterate that it is the broader policy implications that are my gravest concern. While the ERD provided for lifesaving abortions when the intent was not to abort the fetus, but to save the life of the mother, Bishop Olmsted, by fiat, has eliminated that option. This has broad societal implications that reach far beyond one hospital, the facts of this particular case or Catholics themselves.

You will read that the woman had a history of PH—the pregnancy just exacerbated it. She was avoiding pregnancy, but became pregnant despite her efforts to avoid it. Her own doctor had advised her to abort the baby, which she refused.

So a week or so later (the dates are in the report, she went to the Emergency Room, because she was dying—and her lack of oxygen was so extreme that the baby was dying as well.

The hospital did not preform an abortion to kill the baby (which the poor baby was dying, too), but rather, was attempting to remove the organ that created the condition where the poor woman’s right chamber of her heart failed—the placenta.

Because the mother’s condition and lack of oxygen was so extreme, and reduced the baby was in the process of dying. There was nothing they could do to save the baby.

It is all in the report, you can read it yourself and stop speculating, and saying uncharitable things about this poor woman, and attacking other people, like Anne Rice.

I am a mother of four children, as this woman is, and I know in my heart she would not have agreed to this just to save herself. I think she knew that the baby was already dying.

After reading this report we can say, well, maybe they just said all of this because they really just wanted to kill a baby. But that is just crazy.

Posted by Tim J. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 4:31 AM (EST):

“There is a wave of ultra conservatism that has torn apart our country, our schools, our churches and just about every institution in its wake. Ms. Rice, I and many others come from a different tradition.”

You are in your most fundamental assumptions simply and sincerely wrong. The tradition that Ms. Rice and many others espouse is Catholic only in flavor, not in substance. Of all institutions on the earth, the Catholic Church has reason to be conservative, as it carries the only thing in the world really worth conserving.

Her doctrine is not subject to amendment based on individual whimsy, on carefully considered individual opinion, or on misguided notions of compassion. “Compassion”, unrooted in Truth, turns out most often to be a source of breathtaking hubris and mischief, just as then most meddlesome and stifling bureaucratic nonsense is exercised “for the good of the people” on whom it is inflicted.

Nobody is condemning Anne Rice or you or anybody who may disagree with this ONE case. What I find exasperating is that WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS and everybody is drawing certain conclusions as if they have absolute knowledge to know whether this case was morally correct or not and in many instances projecting their passions even though the facts can’t be substantiated. This is a difficult case and it is only one case. If it’s true what the Bishop is claiming of St. Joseph’s consistent disregard for ERD directives, this is a whole other matter that leads credence to the position he’s taking. Nevertheless, this case is not worth debating with the current lack of facts in place especially because we’re NEVER going to know the truth because of medical privacy laws. We should acknowledge each other and disagree without condemning each other. The truth is the only thing that can set us ALL free.

Posted by Abscissio on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:59 AM (EST):

I am very tired, getting sick, but cannot suffer many of these comments anymore.

There is a wave of ultra conservatism that has torn apart our country, our schools, our churches and just about every institution in its wake. Ms. Rice, I and many others come from a different tradition.

While I am not Catholic myself, Catholicism is very much a part of my extended family. Were it not for my grandmother being sexually abused by a priest in the early 1900’s, I would be Catholic. All of her siblings remained Catholic and many of her children married Catholics. I have been raised with many of the traditions and beliefs.

I suspect that many of you are too young to recognize the Catholic tradition in which Ms. Rice was raised and with which she speaks so eloquently here. It is the same Catholic tradition within my family and the principles of social justice which are so instilled in my very being.
That Ms. Rice left the Catholic church is an act of civil disobedience, if you will, not a loss of faith in God or Christ. She is fighting for the Church she loved and the principles and values that were ingrained in her by the Church itself. Everything she says is consistent with her very Catholic upbringing.

You are acting as if your thinking is the only way of thinking within the Church. Right now, it appears to be the dominant, controlling way, as it does in certain segments of the Protestant faith, but it is not and has not always been so. And there are many within the Catholic faith who share Ms. Rice’s values, based upon this very Catholic tradition that is unrecognizable and repugnant to you.

We come from an era that was shaped by the Great Depression and the aftermath of WWI. Widespread poverty, wealth disparity, inequality, and a host of other ills of society gave rise to movements to right the wrongs, to create a just, fair world. We are not from an era defined by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the great divide between the red and blue states. We learned our faith and values at the kitchen table, in our churches and in our communities. While we are educated, our values were already well formed before we went off to college. We weren’t polluted or poisoned there.

I recognize and applaud the tradition from which Ms. Rice speaks. She is a world renowned writer. She cares deeply and passionately for the Catholic church and the Catholic tradition in which she was raised. She is fighting for its very existence. You, who only know and appreciate your own limited viewpoint, mistake it for heresy and an attack on Catholicism itself. You have not read her memoir of her return to the Catholic faith, nor her books on the life of Christ - widely praised by both mainstream Protestants and Catholics.

A great, wise and learned woman is amongst you and all you can do is take cheap, vulgar shots at her intellect, art and faith. You “debate” like children on the playground. You posture and spit. It is an insult to the faith itself that you claim.

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:55 AM (EST):

Amber,

In truth, no one is “worthy” to receive Holy Communion. It’s only the gracious mercy of God that we can approach Him in that most Holy Sacrament.

Of course, there are “standards” as you say - for our own good, really. As St. Paul warns us in his letter to the Corintheans, we dare not approach unworthily. Nothing can separate us from God, but we can, by our own actions and choices, separate ourselves.

I admire and respect your integrity in admitting your unworthiness. Would that we would all recognize our failings! But, visiting the sick is certainly a corporal work of mercy, and charity covers a multitude of sins. Have you sought the councel of a good priest?

Posted by Mary Ann on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:38 AM (EST):

The case of the woman with PH at 11 wks sounds fishy to me. I question why such a situation would be allowed to develop over a weeks time. I question whether a medical emergency was allowed to develop and why.
Anne, there are two points you have not addressed in your very frequent posts, things people keep pointing out to you that don’t get a mention in the many words you’ve shared.
Bishop Olmstead’s action was taken as a result of evidence of many medical procedures not in accordance with Catholic teaching,‘regardless of this particular case.
No one has access to all the details of the one case that has gathered attention. Are you really so convinced and if so how can you be?

Posted by Amber on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:36 AM (EST):

Thank you Carolyn. Unfortunely, my choices and actions leave me outside the standards set as worthy of recieving communion. It is a price I pay for my own decisions. But I never felt right leaving God or other people out because of it. I visit Jesus in any way I am worthing of doing so. I just find it easier at the bedside than at church. I hope you can all hear me saying “peace be with you” from outside.

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:32 AM (EST):

I don’t know if anyone else has posted this, but here is the link to the actual decree from the Bishop.

We are all horrible examples of catholic so I would not worry about that. And I am glad you are there on Sunday but maybe, you can visit the Lord in the mass on Saturday evening. The homily will probably be dull but Jesus will be on the altar waiting for you. The purpose is Jesus. Your peace is Jesus.

God bless,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:25 AM (EST):

When I first read about Sr. McBride several months ago, I honestly felt sorry for her. I believed that she was sincere in her belief that the abortion was justified under the principle of double effect. Whether she was objectively right or wrong, I believed that subjectively, she was innocent.

However, in attempting to give the Bishop the same benefit of the doubt, it became clear that he was concerned with more than just this one abortion. If it was true that CHW was violating the ERD in other areas, then was their justification of this one abortion sincere, or was it a case of special pleading?

I then read statements by numerous pro-life physicians who claim that abortion to save the mother’s life is NEVER medically necessary, even in PH cases, and that some doctors recommend it in the early stages simply because it is EASIER to do an abortion in the first trimester than in the second or third trimester.

There are questions that need to be asked, yes, but they are not limited to the Bishop. Did the hospital even attempt to treat the PH by any other means? Did they recommend an abortion because it was easier?

Statistically, abortion to save the mother’s life is rare - accounting for less than 4% of all abortions, according to Guttmacher. So, how does St. Joseph’s explain the OTHER abortions that have taken place at their hospital? Were they ALL done under the principle of double effect as understood by the hospital ethics committee?

Lot’s of questions that hospital hasn’t bothered to explain. But again, there actions speak volumes. They are not at all interested in following the ERD.

Posted by Amber on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:19 AM (EST):

Dear God help me. I am a nurse at St Joseph’s. I am the kind of non-practicing catholic who made a point of working every single Sunday because I couldn’t find a way to find peace or purpose in Mass. I found both in taking care of God’s children. I find it impossible to step foot on campus without anxiety if I don’t say the Lord’s prayer once while parking my car, and again while crossing the 3rd Ave. bridge. That’s how much I care about my imperfect human status and fear of harming anyone by making so much as one breath of a mistake. I love my job. I love my patients. I love St Joe’s because of the people who work there. I’m sorry if anyone does not understand the individual needs of every single person that needs medical care. They rarely have easy choices to make, and they need catholic and non-catholic believing people to support and help them without this kind of public uproar. How would anyone feel if their struggle to stay healthy and alive came at such a high price? How would anyone feel if their devotion to supporting those people had to pay such a huge price? It’s a messy world and not expected to make everyone agree on all things. I am just hoping that God will keep directing people to St Joseph’s hospital for the best possible care, because I will still be waiting there on Sunday for them. Even if I am a horrible example of “catholic.”

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:17 AM (EST):

Rachel,

In the ultimatum given to the hospital last week, the bishop referred only to this case. This is why I have focused my comments to this case. As far as I can tell, this additional information has been revealed today without much specifics. It does not seem fair to me that we should now include all these other charges in the mix when this is the only that has been publically discussed for months and it is the only one that was used when the ultimatum was made.

As I have said in other posts, I have a problem with the process by which the bishops have the power to convict. If the bishop has a specific charge, then let it be made known and let the defendant respond. Given the fact this is the only case where we have been given some kind of specifics, it is the only one we can fairly make judgement about.

CKH

Posted by Rachel on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:09 AM (EST):

@CKH: you are correct that the moral culpability is lessened if one is not acting with full knowledge (or consent). If this were the only case of errant behavior, than this would be a good point.

However, as stated in the letter printed above, CHW has participated for 7 YEARS, despite attempts at correction and education by the bishop, in morally illicit activities (contraception, sterilization, and abortion). I think given that this case seems to indicate a pattern of behavior, rather than an isolated incident, the Bishop acted correctly.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 3:08 AM (EST):

Therese,

I am sorry if I wrongly speculated about your question.

Anyway, I am not sure how we can ignore the medical questions in the case. I don’t expect the bishop to be a medical expert but I think the bishops need to have a good Catholic doctor on staff if they are going to make these proclamations. I sometimes fear that they are quick to make proclamations on matters, like economics, where they have no expertise, and I have been uncomfortable with such statements. This case involves serious medical questions and it does not make sense to me to ignore the medical questions.

Peace,

CKH

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:59 AM (EST):

Many have claimed that treatment alternatives were ignored by the hospital and Sr. McBride. Maybe, that is true. I do think it is rare that an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life. But that does not mean that the hospital acted malciously. If they actually believed that the threat was immediate. That the death of the child was certain and that the mother’s death would soon follow than they are right to try to save the mother’s life. Perhaps, in hindsight, they were wrong and they need to develop alternative methods to deal with this situation but that does not mean that they acted wrongly given what the believed the facts to be.

I certainly hope that hospitals will work on ways to save both mother and child and I don’t want them resorting to abortion as a first response. However, for something to be a mortal sin, one must have accurate knowledge. One must knowingly chose evil. It does not seem to me that that was the case here.

Peace,
CKH

Posted by Rachel on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:52 AM (EST):

I would also like to respond to the supposed “oppression” of women’s rights by the Catholic Church:
If, by “women’s rights,” one means free and total access to birth control and abortion, then perhaps the medical community should be investigated with the same level of scrutiny. Because most women are not provided with true informed consent regarding either of these issues. Instead, the pharmaceutical industry has done a bang-up job of convincing society at large that half the population (women) needs to be medicated in a manner that will alter NORMAL physiology for about 30 years out of their lives. And once society at large accepted this for fact, they stopped asking questions, like:
Why are the rates of infertility higher than 30 years ago? Why are the rates of breast cancer higher? Why are the rates of sexually transmitted infection higher? Why are the rates of anxiety and depression higher, and why does this affect women more than men at least 3:1?
If you want to champion for women’s rights and women’s health, than start looking at the medical industry.

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:47 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

I didn’t say I was stumped that you are asking the Bishop to explain himself. I specifically said that I am stumped you are asking the Bishop to explain the MEDICAL merits of his decision.

He is not a physician and does not claim to be, therefore, why would you or anyone else expect him to give a medical opinion? His decision is based on his interpretation of both the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and her canon law - which are his areas of expertise.

In his opinion, as he has stated, CHW has not complied with the ethical directives set down by the Catholic Church. If he needs to do any explaining, it should be more specifically on how precisely the Church’s moral and ethical teachings have been violated.

The Bishop also states that “many other violations of the ERDs have been taking place at CHW facilities in Arizona throughout my seven years as Bishop of Phoenix and far longer.” So, while you may not want to address the other allegations, the Bishop has obviously factored them into his recent decision.

The bottom line is that the Bishop cannot “verify that this health care organization will provide health care consistent with authentic Catholic moral teaching as interpreted by me in exercising my legitimate Episcopal authority to interpret the moral law.”

Thus, it’s the moral law that is at question, not medical “merits” and it’s the duty of the Bishop to interpret that law, not to become a doctor. In addition, I find your speculation on what “really disturbs” me to be specious.

Posted by Rachel on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:40 AM (EST):

This is tragic for so many reasons, not the least of which that an 11-week pregnancy resulted in the loss of a child. I am sure the family must be grieving for their loss.

It is also tragic that a Catholic institution has lost its status because of 7 years of stubborn refusal to abide by the Magisterial teaching, and that the Bishop had to act in this manner.

It is further tragic that there has been much scandal caused by the publiciity of this case, with one extreme side screaming that at least the mother was alive and the other extreme condemning her. (I would venture that most, however, are not in the extreme.)

Lastly, I will speak as a healthcare provider. In all my training and study, I have yet to see a case where the life of a pregnant mother can ONLY be saved by direct abortion. This is why DIRECT ABORTION is not morally licit, under any circumstances.

Please do not confuse the issue: this is not the same as saying one life holds more value than the other (mother vs. baby); both are deserving of their inherenty dignity. Every option should have been exhausted to treat the pulmonary hypertension in this mother, with her consent, even if it would result in the loss of the child. This is consistent with Church teaching. But this is NOT what took place. Instead, a direct abortion occurred—which is NOT a medical treatment for pulmonary hypertension.

Diane and liseux, I have repeatedly responded to your
irresponsible and wildly speculative posts about this case,
explaining that they are irrelevant.

.
I myself was not addressing you, so if you find my postings bothersome, just pass them up. There is only one moderator of this blog and that is the blog owner.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:31 AM (EST):

Anne,

just read the Doyle article. Thanks. Just yesterday, I read an article about thousands leaving the Church in Germany in the past month alone over the sex abuse scandal. So, I was really frustrated by the pope’s inadequate response to this problem.

Just when I thought we were over the sex abuse stuff, it flares up all over again. I think the laity need to start asking tough questions. We need to ask for accountability. I was once a protestant and I remember the pastor printing out a detailed log of the church’s annual expenditures for us to look at and asked us to vote our to procede on a particular budget issue. Is there any reason why this can’t happen in our parishes? We need to figure out how to get transparency and accountability from the clerics. We need to have some kind of due process and it needs to be public.

@Richard Grant - let me clarify my earlier question. Why is it that medical literature on pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy is focused on the 2nd and 3rd trimester and not the first?

.
From LifeSiteNews, speaking in general terms about “pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy”, which is what we were told it was:

However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Byrne said, “I don’t know of any [situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother].

“I know that a lot of people talk about these things, but I don’t know of any. The principle always is preserve and protect the life of the mother and the baby.”

Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts.

Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman’s particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient.

“But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no” to abortion, said Byrne.

Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the woman’s cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension – which puts stress on the heart and the lungs – to any serious danger.

A pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system does have “major increases,” but they only happen “in the last three months of pregnancy,” Byrne explained.

The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, at which point he speculated the baby could have been artificially be delivered and had a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mother’s pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight.

“It’s not going to be any extra stress on the mother that she can’t stand,” said Byrne. “Eventually you get to where the baby gets big enough that the baby can live outside the uterus and you don’t have to do an abortion.”

“I am only aware of good things happening by doing that. I am not aware of anything bad happening to the mother because the baby was allowed to live.”

“The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller,” which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mother’s life is in immediate danger.

“I’ve done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed,” said Byrne. “The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end.”

1) It’s apparent you didn’t click the link to even know what Cardiologist, Dianne Zwicke, M.D. has done in the area of pulmonary hypertension in pregnant women because you referred to her as “him”.

.

2) The 100% success rate was qualified with “45 consecutive patients”. Google her name along with PH and pregnancy and you will see the board light up. My point was that people need to look closely at these kinds of studies and that it is not too late for people at St. Josephs and other institutions to start doing so now. What does it hurt to explore something other than “kill the baby to save the mother?”. Those women were all told they should abort their babies. Well, they didn’t - they turned to her and all of them have survived. Go read it for yourself.

.
I provided a presentation slide she made with two other physicians on this subject which provides details of what was done. In the article I provided a link to, she provided details, as well.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:16 AM (EST):

Carolyn, I appreciate your thoughts, and your reference to the brilliant Peter Kreeft, whose books I read and whose work I have reviewed on Amazon.com.
I think you are right to demand answers from the bishop.
I applaud you for this.
This bishop may not be all used to some one asking him for answers.
But I think you are right to ask.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:13 AM (EST):

I am sad to have read the letter from the former hospital president but I am not surprised.

It seems to me that authority is not just having the position and expecting others to do as they are told. Real authority is influence. It is having the leadership clout to be able to move others, to win them to Christ.

I am sorry to be so mean but all that has happened so far is the bishop has asserted that the decision is his to make, many, in and out of the Church, have seen this as more evidence of clerical bullying that they need to ignore. Therefore, he did what was expected, declare the hospital “not catholic” and the Catholics who were never going to disagree with him him, cheered because they want to see more institution declared not Catholic.

If I may quote Peter Kreeft, the Church is not a museum of saints but a hospital for sinners. Can we be less eager to throw sinners out of the hospital. Our whole purpose is to care for sinners.

Peace,
CKH

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:13 AM (EST):

Erin Manning says, “Any attempt to see this case any other way is just an attempt to justify the evil of abortion.”
Erin, I don’t think that is true at all.
I think it’s unfair.
Clearly Sr. McBride is a good person, and an experienced hospital
administrator, universally respected and admired.
I do not feel that she can be dismissed like that.
And I think M. Therese Lysaught’s report indicates a deep moral concern
with the issues.
I ask you to reconsider your evaluation of these people and their position.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:06 AM (EST):

Carolyn says, “Yesterday, pope Benedict said that he thinks proportionalism is responsible for the sex abuse crisis. I, not only find that explanation unsatisfying, I think he’s a few miles off the mark. None of this is heretical.”

Have you read the article by Thomas Doyle on this at the National Catholic Reporter? I recommend it. I just posted it on my Facebook Page for discussion.

Posted by Amy George on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:06 AM (EST):

What a good Bishop! And he used to be in Wichita, Ks. I am so relieved we have good Shepherds watching over the unborn.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 2:05 AM (EST):

I am really concerned by how quick so many people are to make assumptions and judgements about the hospital and their defenders. If you are going to pass judgement on someone with limited information, you should err on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt.

CKH

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:59 AM (EST):

Therese,

Why are you stumped that I am asking the bishop to explain himself? I will not address these other allegations as they have just been revealed and I know nothing about them.

However, the hospital is claiming that without the actions taken by them, there would have been two deaths. Is it so unreasonable to ask the bishop if he is denying this claim from a medical perspective? What the bishop has said is that the life of the mother should not be chosen above the child, but the hospital says that there was no way to save the child, who was dying, when they intervened. Does the bishop deny this? If so on what medical grounds? If not, he is saying that Catholic moral theology requires that the hospital allow both mother and child to die? The hospital agrees with the bishop that this is not a case of double effect. They explain that in their statement. Can we not be told what the flaw is in their explanation?

I suspect that you are really disturbed that I might be less than satisfied with the explanation that the bishop provided. Well, there is no Catholic teaching that requires that I be satisfied with the bishop’s explantion.

Yesterday, pope Benedict said that he thinks proportionalism is responsible for the sex abuse crisis. I, not only find that explanation unsatisfying, I think he’s a few miles off the mark. None of this is heretical.

Lastly, I really feel if more Catholics had had the courage to ask for satisfying explanations from their bishops, we might have avoided much of the sex abuse crisis. When I try to evangelize, it is the actions of the bishops, like the sex abuse scandal, that is my greatest obstacle. Since I do believe I have a mandate from Christ to witness to the Gospel, I am compelled to challenge bishops since they are too often an obstacle. While I think they mean well, they are driving people away and making witnessing difficult.

If the bishops want me to back them up on their excommunications or sanctions, they need to convince me. I spent years volunteering in a pro-life counseling institution. I have walked, raised money, answered the phone. I am absolutely pro-life.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Erin Manning on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:57 AM (EST):

Well, maybe it really is all about the money:

http://tinyurl.com/28wvhsh

Clearly, being the kind of hospital that provides or helps refer for contraceptive services, sterilizations, abortions etc. means a much bigger share of the federal pie.

As to this case: it is always gravely morally evil directly and intentionally to take the life of an innocent human being. Bishop Olmsted, having reviewed the case more thoroughly than any of us here, decided that the child’s life was directly and intentionally taken in violation of the moral law and not in any way in which the much-misunderstood principle of double-effect could possibly have applied. In a word, the innocent child was aborted and a grave moral evil committed. Any attempt to see this case any other way is just an attempt to justify the evil of abortion.

Posted by Ran Valerhon on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:56 AM (EST):

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf
Please read this if you haven’t. Here is relevant passages to this discussion: “Moreover, the life of the fetus was equally in peril due to the pathologies of right heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Oxygen delivered to the placenta and fetus is dependent on maternal arterial oxygen content and uterine blood flow. Decrease in maternal cardiac
output and decrease in blood oxygenation can adversely affect fetal oxygenation; the uterus and placenta number among the organs becoming hypoxic during this crisis. Further, maternal hypotension may constrict the uterine artery, decreasing blood flow to the fetus.5
Therefore, on November 5, 2009, mother and fetus were both in the process of dying.Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best
efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.” Medical jargon aside, it is clear that the fetus was dying and that if it wasn’t aborted, the mother would die. I’m sad the baby did not survive. I’m glad the mother did.
Liseux - how cute of you to wink and disparage “literary types” - I presume you mean intelligent, informed persons. And about making abortion illegal (although, as Anne Rice has already said many times, this case isn’t about abortion), take some time to make a list of other rights/freedoms you’d like stripped from your citizenship. If you’re stumped, how about having your right to practice your religion freely taken away? Would you wink at that?

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:52 AM (EST):

Richard Grant, thank you for your response.
I understand completely.
I am not pro abortion, and I too can fully understand
that Catholic hospitals do not want to provide elective
abortions, etc. to the public.
And I understand your wish not to be involved with the ACLU.
My focus remains on emergency care for women dying in
reproductive crises.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond.

Posted by Richard Grant on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:44 AM (EST):

Anne,
In general I have no problem with Catholic hospitals practicing in complete compliance with Catholic moral principles in elective circumstances. I.E. No elective abortions, no elective sterilizations, no contraceptive counseling or prescriptions, no in vitro fertilizations or related procedures, etc. My only proviso is that such healthcare restrictions be made entirely clear to each patient prior to admission.
My comments on this site apply only to the particular episode in question, not to abortions in general.
I also do not wish to involve myself with the ACLU, but I can appreciate your concerns regarding such legal issues.o

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:38 AM (EST):

Diane and liseux, I have repeatedly responded to your
irresponsible and wildly speculative posts about this case,
explaining that they are irrelevant.
We are not here, as I understand it, to make up
fantasies about what we think “really” happened
and to denounce everyone involved as a liar.
The Bishop has never indicated that he did not have all
the relevant facts. He has never indicated that he thought the
hospital was lying. He has addressed the case as it was
presented by the hospital.
I continue to do the same.
I suggest you come down to earth, and tell us why
you are so determined to write your own fictional scenario for
this young mother and the hospital staff who saved her life.
Why can you not deal with the case as we have it?
This is the last time I will respond to your conspiratorial fantasies
and ruminations.
There are important issues here to be discussed.

Posted by liseux on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:32 AM (EST):

Diane, another tremendous post that Anne Rice cannot respond to.

Anne, please respond to Diane’s sincere points and comments:

*“I have to raise the question again. Find me something - any respectable medical resource that is not affiliated with CHW or St. Joseph’s which says that severe pulmonary hypertension is related to gestation at 11 weeks (first trimester).

.
True gestational hypertension happens in the 2nd and 3rd (or > 20 weeks). This woman may have had some form of chronic hypertension, but gestational hypertension does not happen at 11 weeks.

.
This doesn’t mean that she didn’t have a severe hypertensive situation, even life-threatening.

.
Was it a matter of doctors being concerned that, given her hypertensive conditition, it was going to get worse with time, and was easier to abort now rather than later (in which case, if the hypertension was related to the pregancny, then killing the baby and removing it would end the hypertension sometime after with no need for long term anti-hypertensive drugs, right? It would be interesting to know if she is under treatment for chronic hypertension). Forgive me for thinking that a baby at 11 weeks was NOT the true cause of the hypertension, but was considered a greater risk further down the road.

.
It would be good for CHW to call in Dr. Dianne Zwicke who has now had 45 of 45 consecutive successes in treating authentic pulmonary hypertension in pregnant women (meaning they were in the 2nd/3rd trimester, not the 1st). Here is her story from 2008 (she had 40 successes back then; and a presentation she has with details for medical professionals which is updated to 45 consecutive successes).

If any doctor had a 100% success rate with 45 consecutive cancer patients who had a 60% chance of dying, medical professionals would be tripping over each other to get to her and find out what she is doing right. However, when it comes to PH in pregnancy, it seems some hospitals are behind the times and using outdated and barbaric solutions. Perhaps they were unaware of Dr. Zwicke’s successes. Nothing prevents ordinary people here in this thread, and St. Joseph’s, CHW and others from informing themselves about what Dr. Zwicke is doing - unless they want to stick to outdated textbooks.”*

The child could have been saved; if you are truly pro-life, you’d give this information careful research.

Death of the child is not always the solution.

.

.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:31 AM (EST):

You are very welcome, Anne:)

CKH

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:30 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

I am stumped why you believe the Bishop should explain the MEDICAL merits of his position.

From what I have read, including the PDF on Commonweal, both the hospital, and Sr. McBride claim that they believed the abortion to have been justified under the principle of double effect. Some theologians and canon lawyers agree, while others do not.

The Bishop has made it clear that he does not see the abortion as being justified under that principle of double effect.

Had this one abortion been the ONLY violation in dispute, it would be one thing. But it isn’t the ONLY infraction. It appears there are many, many infractions, occuring in over half of the hospitals in the CHW network.

Thus, the hospital’s claim that they believe this abortion was justified under the principle of double effect rings hollow when the numerous other infractions cannot be justified in the same way. It is CHW which needs to explain the other infractions.

I think their actions speak volumes - they are not following the ethical directives of the Church, nor do they wish to. The Bishop has nothing to explain.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:29 AM (EST):

Diane,

Just because the case for termination has been presented by St. Joseph does not mean it is not accurate. And I am glad that they have presented this case. I am impressed by how thoroughly they have employed the Catholic moral tradition in their defense. In fact, it makes better use of that tradition than anything that has come from the their bishop, I am afraid. Whatever you may think about their actions, the person(s) who wrote that document clearly knows and takes their Catholic faith seriously. It seems to me that their accusers have a duty to convict them by debunking the medical and moral case they have presented.

Also, on taking their Catholic faith seriously. It seems to me that we now have many in the Church who think the mark of piety is how submissive one is to one’s bishop. While I am not encouraging anyone to disobey the bishop, if it can be avoided, there is simply more to being a Catholic Christian than that. We are striving for justice, goodness and holiness. And unfortunately, there have been times in Church history in which the bishop is an obstacle to those things. At the very least, we know that this hospital was striving to love this woman within the confines of Church teaching. Can we at least recognize the purity of their intentions? I see no evidence of malice on their part and no reason to justify their harsh words and suspicion that some have for them.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Richard Grant on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:28 AM (EST):

Diane
Pulmonary hypertension and Gestational hypertension are not the same thing. They are not even remotely related. If you are going to continue to comment on this situation, please try to know what you are talking about.
You previously referenced a website of a doctor who claims never to have lost a pregnant patient with pulmonary hypertension. The conclusion I would draw from this is that this particular doctor is very fortunate (as are his patients). It is not logical to conclude that all pregnant patients with pulmonary hypertension can be successfully treated, as you seem to have done.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:23 AM (EST):

Trusting in God’s Wisdom

There once was a man who proclaimed he did not believe in God. “God could never love anyone and if he existed, I would insist that he prove it to me”, he often proclaimed to friends. “God takes lives all the time and the poor and down-trodden are first on the menu”, he would say further. Even though the man was often kind to people all throughout his life, he believed that one should live life to the fullest in every way. He also believed strongly that a woman had every right to an abortion, and if she chose to do so, it was her business only.

One day the man found himself in front of an abortion clinic watching women walk in as protestors were praying and begging the pregnant women not to go in the clinic. A woman who was protesting began talking loudly to a young pregnant woman who was walking into the clinic. This immediately enraged the man and he began yelling at and cursing the woman who was protesting and others began to join in.

The young woman walking into the clinic became scared and upset at both the woman protesting and the man, and immediately turned and ran away from the clinic. This enraged the man and others even more and they escalated their yelling and insults toward the woman protestor. The woman protestor cried and left the scene.

Many, many years later the man was in a serious car accident and was thrown from the car. As he lay dying, many people consoled him as an ambulance rushed to the scene. A young priest who had also been called to the scene began to perform last rites. The man, although in terrible pain and very terrified, gruffly said to the priest, “Don’t waste your breath with that prayer, Father, I’m not a Catholic and even if I was, God has never gone out of his way to help me – take a good look”.

The priest gently smiled at the man and stopped saying the last rites. After a few seconds, the priest began to softly recite the Divine Chaplet of Mercy. “For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and the whole world”, he recited over and over. The man closed his eyes amidst his pain and softly recited and reflected upon the prayer as he peacefully passed into darkness.

Suddenly, a great light engulfed the man along with great love. The man was more afraid than ever as he knew he was in the presence of God. He asked what was happening and who it was that he was speaking to. He asked this because he could only see one form but felt there were others in the area as well.

“I am Jesus, Son of the Living God, and you have been born to a new life. We are here to judge your life on earth”. Immediately, as in a video, the man began to see his entire life in review. The good and the bad.
Many times when he helped the poor, other times when he freely partook in sins of the flesh. Times when he helped the elderly, and times when he intentionally hurt other people. The life review seemed to stop as quickly as it had started and the man felt ashamed.

Quickly, however, the man recovered, and recalled what he had said to friends during his life. “What chance did I have when my creator never showed any effort to reach out to me with love?” “Why did you not even try a little to help save me from myself?”.

The Lord looked lovingly at the man and played back the life scene in front of the abortion clinic. The man was mortified as he watched himself become enraged. He was overcome with resign and asked the Lord what happened to the woman protestor who had left the scene those many years ago.

The Lord responded, “She was called to me a few days later, she had accomplished her mission”.

“And what of the woman that decided not to have an abortion that day?”, he asked.

“She bore a healthy son and passed to me after childbirth, she had accomplished her mission”.

The man looked down and felt very sad. He slowly looked up and softly said to the Lord, “I wish I would have met her son; that I could know what he looks like and see how he turned out in life”. But, I never did, and yet you show me these images anyway.” Lord, can you not show me one instance in my life where you went out of your way even a little bit to show the extent of your love for me”?.

“You met her son at the twilight of your life”, said the Lord, “He will be joining us soon – he has accomplished his mission”. “Come, let us go to heaven”.

The man felt happy, relieved, and curious all at once, and felt compelled to ask Jesus two final questions. “Who was this woman’s son and what was his mission?” , asked the man.

“He was a simple priest who believed in God’s Mercy, and you were his mission”, responded three voices.

Posted by Erin Manning on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:22 AM (EST):

Tim J., that is one of the best comments I’ve seen so far on this post.

However, regardless of what the hospital did or did not intend, the fact remains that the killing of this child via abortion remains a profoundly evil act. What is especially troubling is the news that other abortions have taken place at CHW, along with other anti-life activities (e.g., contraception, sterilizations, etc.).

So many commenters here today refuse to acknowledge that abortion is always profoundly evil, that it can never be justified under any circumstances whatsoever, and that the principle of double-effect (under which it is sometimes possible to permit an unborn child to die while treating a pregnant woman for a disease) cannot apply in a case where the child was slaughtered *as* the proposed “cure,” where her death was willed and desired and was, indeed, the whole reason for the “procedure.”

A terrible injustice was done—first and foremost to the murdered child, but also to her mother and father who should never have been pressured to give consent to killing her, especially not by the very people they entrusted to save both mother and child. It is not possible for anyone who thinks with the Church to see this whole ugly incident as anything other than the grave evil which it was.

The hospital has said “Non serviam,” and has chosen not to be Catholic by its actions (and Sister McBride has done the same thing). The hospital had a chance to continue its Catholic identity by apologizing for the sin of abortion and promising it would not happen again; one assumes that the same holds true for Sister McBride. At this point, it is their choice to reject the Catholic identity by their prideful insistence that “Catholic” should mean whatever the hell they want it to mean. That is not, and never has been, what following Christ is all about—for who would invent the kind of truth that demands the suffering of the Cross, after all?

Only when the Cross and suffering are seen as politically incorrect embarrassments do people start demanding the right to redefine the Church however they feel like redefining her. But this is proof positive that the people and institutions in question are no longer really Catholic.

Posted by Rick on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:22 AM (EST):

There several major issues here but, unfortunately, these discussions are only focusing on the morality of the specific circumstances of the abortion. St. Joseph’s Hospital has presented their arguement based on Catholic theology that there ethics and procedures follow the teachings and ministry of Jesus. However, the actions taken by Bishop Olmstead were not just because of this one medical procedure. According to the Bishop’s statement, St. Joseph’s and CHW clearly have performed many medical procedures not acceptable according to Catholic teaching. In addition, St. Joseph’s, after discussion with the Bishop, has rejected the authority of the Bishop and, by extension, the authority of the Pope. Just as St. Joseph’s has a responsibility to provide heath care to the community and a fiduciary responsibity to its owners, the Bishop has the responsible to teach and protect Catholic teachings. Even though St. Joseph is pledging to continue its operations in the “Catholic tradition”, CHW should consider changing its name to “Anglican Healthcare West” or “Protestant Healthcare West” to truly reflect their defiance to Catholic authority. (Truth in advertising?) The issues here are vital to women’s rights, men’s rights, and children’s rights. And to good health, mental, and spiritual care in America for all no matter their age or state in life. Personally, I’d like to see St. Joseph’s and CHW return the millions of federal dollars they have received back to the government to demonstrate that their ethics and moral decision-making process are not tainted in any way by any financial influence.

Posted by Grace56 on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:20 AM (EST):

Diane your analysis is spot on. This story is very fishy. She get admitted to the hospital for observation and a week later she is on death’s door.

Posted by Tim J. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:17 AM (EST):

Apostate Catholics willing to defend other apostate Catholics are very easy to find. Their opinions are not of any particular interest to those who wish to uphold the whole teaching of the Church rather than just their favorite bits of it.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:14 AM (EST):

Tim,

I don’t find self-sacrifice repugnant. But if the hospital is accurate in their assessment that the infant was dying, then is it not moral to save the only life that can be safe? It seems to me that the only remaining question is whether the hospital is accurate on the medical facts presented. If they are, then they are perfectly within the confines of Catholic teaching.

As the retired president of a Catholic hospital, I applaud the decision of St. Joseph’s Hospital to stand up to the attempted power grab by Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted.

The bishop, who was not elected by the clergy or people of the Phoenix Diocese and who reigns without transparency or accountability to any of them, nevertheless was demanding control over medical decision-making at St Joseph’s.

I’m confident the wonderful patient care at St. Joseph’s will continue long into the future without the bishop’s blessing.

Having made his decision on the St. Joe’s question, Bishop Olmstead can now concentrate on the problem of sexual abuse by clergy in his diocese and the role he should be playing in dealing with this much more serious problem.

I think, Anne, that you may be a bit presumptious in asserting that the mother involved would agree with your characterization of what occured as a “life-saving abortion.”

It’s pretty clear that she did not WANT to lose her unborn child. It’s clear that baby was wanted by her. That she ultimately consented to the abortion does not take away that fact that she has tragically lost a child.

While I don’t presume to know her mind, I can only say that I doubt she will ever forget that, while the abortion MAY have saved HER life, it also cost the life of her child.

Thus, I find it doubtful she could ever refer to the abortion as “life-saving.”

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:09 AM (EST):

I am greatly saddened by the staunch defending of Murder by Abortion and all of the excuses, protestations, and rank justifications. Let those who take up this odious banner, be shamed by their stance, the successor to
“Arbeit Macht Frei”

“And why wouldn’t the poor woman grant such permission when she and her family have been cruelly vilified by you and other know it alls on this website?”

You are being foolish here. I am not vilifying the woman nor anyone. I am stating the obvious, you have incomplete information and so does everyone commenting on this board. How can you even begin to determine what is right without having complete information? I’ve read the report by the moral theologian and I can tell you clearly that it’s making strong assumptions about the physical conditions of the case without providing the complete chart, which is protected by law. She’s based her analysis on the information that supports her argument and everyone that reads her report would have to do the same since there’s no other information except what supports her argument. All the comments that affirm the validity of the report have no choice but to do this because you’re seeing it from a her lens without an objective finding analyzing her complete chart. We don’t know all the details because there are medical privacy laws that would preclude such exposition. I’m neither pontificating to you nor others because I know clearly that we don’t have complete information and everyone commenting here is staking out a position without having complete information, which is the reason why this debate has gotten out of hand. There is no reason to even discuss the matter if we can’t ascertain what’s truthful here.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:05 AM (EST):

Carolyn, thank you for your compassion and understanding.
I deeply respect all those who are posting here, all those
who believe that we must struggle over matters of life and
death, that we must speak up on matters of right and wrong.
I thank you again for your incredible kindness here.

I have to raise the question again. Find me something - any respectable medical resource that is not affiliated with CHW or St. Joseph’s which says that severe pulmonary hypertension is related to gestation at 11 weeks (first trimester).

.
This doesn’t mean that she didn’t have a severe hypertensive situation, even life-threatening.

.
Was it a matter of doctors being concerned that, given her hypertensive conditition, it was going to get worse with time, and was easier to abort now rather than later (in which case, if the hypertension was related to the pregancny, then killing the baby and removing it would end the hypertension sometime after with no need for long term anti-hypertensive drugs, right? It would be interesting to know if she is under treatment for chronic hypertension). Forgive me for thinking that a baby at 11 weeks was NOT the true cause of the hypertension, but was considered a greater risk further down the road.

.
If any doctor had a 100% success rate with 45 consecutive cancer patients who had a 60% chance of dying, medical professionals would be tripping over each other to get to her and find out what she is doing right. However, when it comes to PH in pregnancy, it seems some hospitals are behind the times and using outdated and barbaric solutions. Perhaps they were unaware of Dr. Zwicke’s successes. Nothing prevents ordinary people here in this thread, and St. Joseph’s, CHW and others from informing themselves about what Dr. Zwicke is doing - unless they want to stick to outdated textbooks.

.
Something is absolutely fishy about a claim that the mother was dying on account of an 11 week pregnancy. It is much more plausible had this been a 20+ week pregnancy.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:03 AM (EST):

liseux, we have been all this before on this thread.
The report by M. Therese Lysaught—solicited by the
bishop and the hospital—- has been posted. The link
is on the Commonweal website and the link is above.
I recommend you read the report.
Efforts to try to re-write this case are not relevant either
to what happened or the bishop’s response to it.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:03 AM (EST):

Anne,

I know you think you’re in bed with the devil but it’s more like you are on the farm with the sheep and the goats. Of course, only the Lord knows who are the real goats but we should not be surprised that this Christian thing is rough and at times discouraging. I am not farmer but that’s probably what happends when you put sheep and goats together (I guess:)

God loves and we need you. Come back home:)

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 1:01 AM (EST):

“Catholic hospitals operate 15 percent of the hospital beds in the country, and are often the only hospital in a particular community. After the incident at St. Joseph’s, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed its position that essentially no abortions, including those to save a woman’s life, can be performed in Catholic hospitals.

“We all know that, unfortunately, a pregnant woman can suffer complications that require emergency attention to save her health or her life. A pregnant woman who enters an emergency room should be guaranteed that they will be provided life-saving care if something goes horribly awry. Saving a woman’s life must be every hospital’s first priority. St. Joseph’s did the right thing, and we encourage the hospital to continue to provide compassionate care.”

The above quote is from an article entitled Don’t Let Her Die: Emergency Abortions Must Be Performed in All Hospitals—- on the ACLU website.
I offer this quote because some have raised here the point that in
their opinion a hospital is not required by law to provide an emergency
abortion to a dying woman.
I think they are mistaken.
So apparently does the ACLU.

Posted by Tim J. on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:59 AM (EST):

I do believe we should - as far as possible - assume good faith on both sides to begin with.

I therefore assume the hospital at least *thought* they were doing the right thing and were not merely looking for a reason to flout church teaching.

If, though, the hospital system has in fact routinely allowed or encouraged elective abortions, that is indeed troubling and casts some doubt on their willingness to use any means at their disposal (even heroic and expensive ones) to save the life of BOTH the unborn baby and his/her mother.

I hold as patently ridiculous the implied accusation that the Bishop disregards the lives and well-being of women and uses Church teaching as a means to oppress them, even at the cost of their lives.

The whole teaching of the Church, upheld at every point, will *always* be the most compassionate and life-giving path, but this does not happen without self-sacrifice, a concept which the secular, industrialized world finds increasingly repugnant.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:58 AM (EST):

Carolyn, I understand your point here completely, and I applaud your sending him a letter to ask him about his position. I think you are right. I support you in this completely. I am no longer Catholic having left the church shortly after this incident (the bishop’s condemnation of Sr. McBride) first made the news. But I agree with you completely that the Bishop’s actions and words have huge implications. I think we will see more and more of these implications addressed in the coming days. Clearly many Catholics disagree strongly with this bishop and what he has done here.

You are probably right about their not being allowed to release this report. But I have a problem with that. When a bishop says an institution is no longer Catholic, he is attempting to influence how I relate to that institution. If I am looking for a Catholic gynocologist, I might not go there. If I am looking to make a donation, I might choose another institution. Therefore, I have a right, I think, to be given a full explanation about this insitution and why we are excluding them. Given the fact that the Church has had reverse her decisions on previously condemned persons or activities, we know that these are not infallible statements. Why can’t we be let in on it? Why are so many people acting like this is between the bishop and the hospital? I take very seriously my kinship with other Christians and I don’t take their exclusion lightly.

Given what we have been presented with. I think it makes sense to pressure the bishop to put forth an equally well-thought out statement that explains the MEDICAL merits of his position. If he is incapable of doing that, then perhaps, he should humbly admit that he is wrong. I intend to send him a respectful letter ASAP and I encourage others to do the same.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by liseux on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:50 AM (EST):

Anne, you have no complete record to certify that the mother would have died.

I refer to Chris’s post from the *Smackdown II* thread:

*“The fact is that while there IS significant risk in the case of pulmonary hypertension (which is often diagnosed in women only when a pregnancy occurs), such a diagnosis is not a certain death sentence.

Some women diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension can & do go ahead with their pregnancies. Treating pulmonary hypertension involves identifying the cause and attempting to halt or reverse the condition, although currently the only long-term ‘cure’ is a heart-lung transplant, regardless of a persons fertility state.

Even though I’m not a doctor, I am aware of a wide range of treatment for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension who decide not to kill their children. They are almost uniformly put under round the clock observation, especially in the third trimester, and there are several specific medications & techniques used to manage the condition in pregnancy. It is quite common for such women to deliver prematurely, whether it happens naturally or is induced as soon after 32 weeks as possible.

All of these things are perfectly compatible with Church teaching that ALL life is of equal dignity & worth. Essentially “every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy [either before or after the point of viability] is an abortion. ... Direct abortion is never morally permissible. One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason.”

Treating pulmonary hypertension involves identifying the cause and attempting to halt or reverse the condition.

Doctors typically recommend just killing the child with abortion. Most likely with the rationalization of “making sure to save at least one life”, but one must wonder how much “crystal ball reading”, risk, expense & management avoidance factors into such a rationalization. Abortion is certainly an easier way of reducing the risk of death to the mother, but it doesn’t treat disease or the fact that the mothers life is still in danger as long as the disease remains.

But performing an abortion, whether it’s by crushing the skull of the infant, or removing the placenta in order to deprive it of oxygen/nutrients, is not treatment of disease, it is killing a living human child - so morally illicit.

That is the issue, & that is why St. Joseph’s faced the choice of following Catholic teaching that values ALL life, or not being able to call itself Catholic anymore.

Pulmonary hypertension is a grave condition, with risk to not only the mother, but the child as well. It is important to note though, that a risk, no matter how great is not a certainty.”*

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:49 AM (EST):

Richard Grant, thank you for your post.
What do you think about the issue of women’s health care in
Catholic Hospitals, apart from this one incident?
Do you think that women are receiving the care to which they
are entitled under the law?
I’m sure you know of the ACLU’s request for an investigation.

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:46 AM (EST):

Carolyn,

The Bishop’s decision was based on numerous violations committed by CHW’s Network - not “just” the one abortion that took place last year. He has been in negotiation with CHW for seven years.

Posted by Richard Grant on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:46 AM (EST):

Dear Analysis,
I am quite sure YOU do not have access to the complete information, as you claim. But that does not mean that Lysaught also relied on incomplete information. All St Joe’s had to do was ask the patient’s permission and she could have access to the entire medical chart. And why wouldn’t the poor woman grant such permission when she and her family have been cruelly vilified by you and other know it alls on this website?
I have reviewed the commonweal report, and in my opinion as a physician of thirty years experience, it is entirely credible.
The bishop Is wrong in his analysis here. Sorry.

Posted by CR on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:41 AM (EST):

Actually, Anne. I wasnt referringto anything you had written. Was just generally pointing out that a term used so frequently to describe an abortion doesn’t make much sense to me since a life was lost.

Posted by liseux on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:41 AM (EST):

You’d think the literary types would get that point…. ;-}

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:40 AM (EST):

TheresaEE says, A “life-saving abortion” is an oxymoron.”
Not for the young mother involved here, it isn’t.
She’s alive today because of that life saving abortion.
She’s with her four children and her family.
How does one explain to this woman,
assuming there is an opportunity,
why so many Catholics wish she had been forced to die?

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:37 AM (EST):

A “life-saving abortion” is an oxymoron.

Posted by TheresaEE on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:33 AM (EST):

Joannie,

You bring up a great point when you say that not every woman wants to be pumped full of artificial hormones. Nor does every woman want their perfectly healthy fertility to be mutilated just because they are having a problem pregnancy.

I was having some difficulties during my last pregnancy, resulting in a C-section, and was shocked and outraged when my physician insisted that I should let her tie my tubes while she was “already in there.” I was most outraged by the fact that this occured in a “catholic” hospital - something I never expected to hear. If I wanted to be pressured into having a tubal ligation, I would have gone to any number of hospitals in my area which do not claim to be Catholic.

Nor do I intend to spend 30,000 dollars/year sending my children to a “catholic” college, where they will learn NOT Catholic teaching, but dissent from Catholic teaching.

If I want Honda parts for my car, I would be angry if I went to a Honda service center and ended up with the same parts I could get at the Chevy service center. If I want health-care that is in conformity with the Catholic Church’s moral teachings, then I expect that at a Catholic hospital. God Bless Bishop Olmstead for putting an end to cHW’s deceitful claim to being a Catholic health-care provider.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:26 AM (EST):

Carolyn, maybe they couldn’t release the report.
They were after all trying to work things out with the
bishop.
Perhaps they didn’t have his permission to release it.
Now of course negotiations have totally broken down and
they are, I suppose, free to release it.

Posted by Catholic on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:23 AM (EST):

Great. Now go and do the same with other hospitals operating under the guise of “Catholic” and next up are colleges like Notre Dame who openly spit on Church teaching with their example.

I will say it again. Is anybody reading the hospital’s analysis. It is really good. I think the bishop has a responsibility to respond. As for the bishop trying to protect privacy. I think declaring a hospital “not catholic” ot excommunicating someone is a concern for the whole Church. We are one body. We are a community and I appreciate the hospital taking the time to explain the facts of the case as well as a moral analysis within the Catholic Tradition. This is the type of process that I want to see. Let’s institutionalize this process instead of the one-sided, closed door version that we have now.

Reading this has moved me from being on the fence. Again, does the bishop have his own medical anaylisis. Surely, it’s not enough for him to say, “Do what I say. I am the bishop.” It might be within the confines of canon law but it is neither pastoral nor prudent.

It’s stunning to read the assertion by some posters that Bishop O TODAY is being “hypocritical” for insisting that a Catholic hospital adhere to Catholic ethical directives, (since some Bishops failed DECADES AGO to deal canonically and civilly with pedophile priests).

For decades, some Catholic Bishops ignored canonical crimes, (even those which were also civil crimes), committed by those in their charge, and failed miserably to protect their flock by dealing with these abuses.

These crimes, while differing in both kind and gravity, are crimes nonetheless. They include, but are not limited to, the sexual abuse of children, the performance of/cooperation with intrinsically evil acts e.g., abortions, sterilizations, administration of contraceptives by Catholic hospitals, and open dissent from and outright disparagement of Catholic doctrine at Catholic schools and universities.

Praise God, those days are coming to an end. Bishops are finally starting to do deal with the mess they themselves helped to foster when they allowed these wounds in the Body to go untreated for an entire generation.

I applaud Bishop O for doing his job. It’s both dishonest and deceitful for any institution or organization to advertise itself as “Catholic” when it is not.

Posted by CR on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:18 AM (EST):

“performing a life-saving abortion”. Ye speaketh with a forked-tongue..

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:16 AM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias

I have no idea where the leaks are coming from.

Posted by Anne Rice on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:15 AM (EST):

Dr. Ramirez, I think “the least of these” was most certainly
the dying mother.
She was up against a system which has traditionally
privileged the life of the unborn over the life of the mother.
Many here, as you can easily see, wish that she had been
abandoned to die with her unborn child, though her pregnancy was
fatal and failing and the child itself was dying and had no chance
for life.
Sr. McBride saved “the least of these,” that dying mother of four
and restored her to her family.
That takes courage, I would say,
and is in keeping with Matthew 25.

Posted by Dr Ray Ramirez on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:11 AM (EST):

In part: Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 1:34 PM (EST):

>>> Thank God for the people of Phoenix that St.Joseph’s will continue
to offer safe, legal and medically approved care to all persons… <<<

Unless they do not yet have a birthday, but are a distinctively different DNA from their mother and father and any siblings that share the same parents.
When you care for the least of these - you care for me. (Mt 25:40) Which is what Bishop quoted to start this.
And what the Church has taught for close to 2000 years.
And we pray for all those who do not yet understand this.

Posted by Anthony Rowe on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:02 AM (EST):

once again the protestants make themselves known on issues of which their opinion means nothing.

Posted by MONI on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:01 AM (EST):

GOD BLESS YOU BISHOP OLMSTED FOR BEING A TRUE SHEPHARD FOR THIS FLOCK OF JESUS CHRIST! YOU ARE IN MY PRAYERS.

There are medical privacy laws that don’t allow the discussion of this incident. The Bishop’s office maintains that it has tried to keep this private and confidential but leaks have been occurring. Where do you think the leaks have been coming from?

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:59 PM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias

Well, if you do not think we have all the facts,
that is a different issue altogether, isn’t it?
The topic would have to do with the way this
has been reported; not with the incident itself.

I feel I must continue to respond to the incident as
it was reported, and to the incident which the bishop
responded to.

As I said, he has given no indication that the information
is incomplete or faulty.

You’re right. I apologize for that. The issue here is we DON’T have complete information less the analysis by people who are truly medically knowledgeable on this board. I have siblings who are doctors and believe me there ARE differing opinions. Without the chart and these opinions we’re all grasping at straws. So I’m not saying anybody’s lying but I’m also stating the obvious which many folks ON THIS BOARD aren’t willing to admit - WE DON’T KNOW ALL THE FACTS.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:50 PM (EST):

Carolyn, thank you for your thoughtful and substantive post.
Appreciated.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:49 PM (EST):

I’m sorry, Joanie, but I cannot really follow your post.
I’m unable to understand your point.
I am not aware of any comments on my part that seek
to “demonize” anyone.
And I continue to believe that this entire issue
is about the value of the lives of women,
and their moral prerogatives when faced with
death in a failed or failing pregnancy.
I cannot really address all the other things you said
because I do not understand them.
Let me suggest you read the report by Ms. Lysaught.
It really has nothing to do with Commonweal.
The link to it was posted on a Commonweal blog,
but it is the report which the bishop asked the hospital
to solicit.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:48 PM (EST):

I have only finished reading the medical analysis portion of the hospital statement’s and i find their argument to be solid. I also appreciate that even a layman can understand it.

I think the bishop now has a responsibility to present an alternate medical thesis.

Peace
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Joanie on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:43 PM (EST):

But I thought this was not about abortion, Anne! I thought this was about something else, isn’t that what you said. Now you are saying that it is about abortion. I am confused. So now what are your demands? You get the sense of frustration as no doubt must have occurred over seven or eight years time. You wish to do exactly the same should the circumstance arise and call it Catholic, ok, so what if we go along with that since you have your special experts who pronounce it acceptable and Catholic. What if we buy that, that this was noble and life-saving and essential. Fine, it was noble and brave. (And tragic, all at the same time). But what of participating in the other immoral practices? What of the fact that the entire conference of bishops formulated the standards, not one bishop in particular? What of seven years of discussion, where is the conciliatory, pastoral approach? How would agreeing to undergo catechesis compromise the health of women? After all not all women wish to be pumped up full of artificial hormones. Not every Catholic man wishes for a vasectomy. You seem, Anne to have come to this board to gloat and to portray this single man as evil, making a (new) name for yourself on this poor woman’s tragedy and even to insult those who even in that woman’s very shoes might have chosen something else, as unheard of as it might sound. Isn’t it enough that she had to lose her own baby in order to continue to live? How do you think that makes her feel? Do you think she wishes to be a poster child for you, Sr. McBride, commonweal and anyone else who wishes to turn their private issues of what they wish to do and not do into a political issue? I think not. If it is not about abortion, and it is not about the money, then, could it be, about the pride? I don’t see your efforts here, Anne as so noble and righteous speaking up for “women”. I am a woman. You do not speak for me. I pray for that woman and for her child. Demonizing this one Bishop, Sr. McBride, or any priest or religious here and venting hatred for the Church will never make this woman whole and will never restore her child.

Posted by Brandon on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:40 PM (EST):

@AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias - If you’re going to quote me, at least write back to the right person. I wrote that, not Anne.

And your point is double-edged—the bishop is making his claims without the full report either. But even when presented with the explanation deemed appropriate by the hospital to protect the woman’s right to privacy, people like you and this bishop continue on with the ideal that “abortion is wrong” which basically means you’d rather this woman have died rather than seek a sound, life-saving, medical procedure. Do you really think this hospital is going to create a false story just to perform a procedure? No. Your logic is that of Senator McCain and his reasoning behind voting to continue DADT: “first we need to conduct a survey of our service men and women before voting;” then once a survey is conducted, “well we need to conduct a survey that asks different questions.” You’ll find fault of the logical thinking people like Anne and mainstream society even if you have a full medical history in front of your face. Get over yourself.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:40 PM (EST):

AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias
You have the wrong person here.
The statement you quoted was not made by me.
It was made by some one else.
Please review the posts.

The report by Ms. Lysaught was requested by the bishop
and it is my understanding that he based his determination
on the report. Did the Bishop request more information?
Did the Bishop indicate that he needed more information?
Did the bishop lament the absence of medical records,
or say he had “incomplete information?”
Apparently not.

To repeat as I have done over and over again,
I am concerned with the case as we know it,
and as the bishop judged it.

Posted by Tom on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:37 PM (EST):

Thank you for standing up for Catholic values. Now, if supposedly “Catholic” institutions such as Notre Dame would also be relieved of the title “Catholic” maybe things would change.

Posted by Brandon on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:33 PM (EST):

@Everett—So if CHW shouldn’t call themselves Catholic, then perhaps no one should call themselves Catholic. I mean, no Catholic is perfect. No Catholic follows each and every covenant of their belief system. So if by allowing a life-saving abortion procedure to occur in their hospital, CHW is somehow “not Catholic”, then by the same standard no one should be “Catholic” for the cadre of indiscretions they have performed in their lives.

Even pedophile priests and bishops who hurt young children still deem themselves as Catholics, but somehow we’re going to penalize a hospital for performing a life-saving abortion?

If we’re going to change the rules pertaining to what or who may be termed “Catholic”, let’s do so across the board.

“Yea, because we should have access to a woman’s full medical history and/or chart so that you can still find fault in her retaining a life-saving abortion?”

I’m not as presumptuous as you are to ascertain other people’s thoughts but I do know that you’re basing your assessment on an incomplete record, something anybody with any intellectual honesty should never do. You’re not a doctor as much as most folks here are probably not, and that includes M. Therese Lysaught, whose report you cite. I’ve read the report and she’s speaking as if she was a doctor which I know this not to be true. And for what reason? To argue the position she’s taking. It’s only natural for her to do this. Writing a report in defense of a position when the record is not publicly available is not the way to do defend one’s position because it leaves plenty for the skeptics to argue. I totally understand this to be the case and hence the difficulty in trying to see what the truth really is here. To only take the word of certain people is highly selective and just further demonstrates that you’re arguing a position more than in search of truth, and I’m not stating this as if I know what the truth is, meaning that she should have not aborted. But you’re being highly disingenuous in your statements to claim any position as if merited a higher moral standing when YOU HAVE INCOMPLETE information.

Posted by Paul Zummo on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:30 PM (EST):

Gotta love the dim bulbs resorting to the argumentum ad pedophilia. Well, I guess when Satan’s looking over your shoulder as you type, you’ll resort to any argument you can.

Posted by Abscissio on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:30 PM (EST):

Everyone, please stop what you’re doing and read the report titled “MORAL ANALYSIS OF AN INTERVENTION PERFORMED AT ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL AND
MEDICAL CENTER.” This was done at Bishop Olmsted’s request. He then rejected the report, but this is the very best statement of the facts I have seen. Once again, here is the link:

great… apart from excommunicating McBride who made a hard choice, Olmsted should also find out if the poor lady who had an abortion is Catholic and excommunicate her too.

Olmsted should also excommunicate any Catholic lady who has had an abortion, particularly those of rape and incestous relations. That’ll really send a message.

I dare Olmsted or any person who agrees with him on this issue to do a month as a doctor in a ObGyn clinic and be responsible for the deaths of countless innocent women who would suffer from pulmonary hypertension or rape, incestous relationships. I guarantee you he will be in jail in less than a week for criminal negligence (catholic morals or not)

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:19 PM (EST):

For those who have not read the entire report, I highly recommend it. It is much better theology than any of the actual commonweal, catholic reporter or other publications’ articles. Due to lack of time I’m not going to provide a full explication, but the short version is that the argument is that the procedure performed was not strictly speaking an abortion (the direct killing of the child), but rather the removal of the cause of the mother’s illness, which according to medical professionals, was the placenta. While I am not qualified to respond to the medical question, if this is correct, and that the procedure performed can possibly have the direct goal of removing the placenta with the unfortunate consequence of the death of the child as a result of the removal of the placenta, then in fact this procedure may be licit. Unfortunately I have never actually seen this argument presented anywhere in the last several months, thus increasing confusion on both sides.

Regardless of the moral facts of the single individual case, if in fact CHW is involved in other acts that are contrary to the teaching of the Church, as Bishop Olmsted’s letter suggests, then they still should not be calling themselves Catholic.

Posted by Brandon on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:17 PM (EST):

@AnalysisThruTheLensOfBias - Yea, because we should have access to a woman’s full medical history and/or chart so that you can still find fault in her retaining a life-saving abortion? Medical professionals aren’t going to make up a wild lie in order to perform an abortion. This isn’t a conspiracy. This is a medical case in which the only solution was either to terminate the pregnancy or lose both the mother AND fetus. Get over yourselves, no one involved with this case WANTED an abortion, it was the only sound medical choice available.

And for those of you who are saying the hospital should “compromise”—I say, how dare you. How dare you put someone else’s life at jeopardy because you’re personally not comfortable with a medical procedure that will save their life. This bishop is no hero, he would have been perfectly happy to see this woman die rather than have the abortion which saved her life. You people are the definition of ignorant. Hospitals should NEVER compromise patient care for the sake of a religious minority’s morals.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:17 PM (EST):

Joanie, I believed that Sr. Margaret McBride
saved this young mother’s life.
Bravely, Sister stood up for life.
I really do not understand your point of view.
Am I right that you wanted the woman to die with her
unborn child? You felt this was appropriate or required of her?
May I ask why?
This woman’s life has value. She is a person. She is some one made by
God in His image, and she has a right to life.
I am sorry you see the matter the way you do.
I must stand up for Sr. McBride and the hospital.
As they so eloquently put it, they could save only one
life here and they did.

Posted by Stu on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:13 PM (EST):

Miss Rice said…“I do not know of any other way to deal with the moral issues.”——-
Old Naval Aviator adage to student pilots who often have difficulty taking on radios.

The above link is to the entire 24 page report by M. Therese Lysaught at the Commonweal blog. The report is very illuminating and well worth reading in its entirety.

I hope it will put to bed forever the doubts of those who insist the hospital “lied” about the case.

One thing is certain.
This decision was taken very seriously by all involved,
and that is as it should be.
Decisions regarding life and death should concern us all.

Posted by Abscissio on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:11 PM (EST):

Let me reiterate again that the facts of this particular case are not the true issue. The Catholic Church via Bishop Olmsted has now taken the stand that, even in situations where the fetus will not be able to survive on its own, when a pregnant woman is in any life threatening distress an abortion cannot be performed to save her life. This is a change from previous policy.

Even when death is clearly going to happen if nothing is done, if abortion is the only way to save a woman’s life, it is no longer an option. Aborting a fetus was an option in life threatening situations where the intent was not to kill the fetus but to save the mother.

Bishop Olmsted has restated the position of the Church that both must now die. He has changed Church policy. He no longer recognizes moral dilemmas. He no longer recognizes the guidance of the Council of Bishops. He rejects their guidance and is announcing that his word is the supreme word in his jurisdiction. There has been a shift of power and control in the Church.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:07 PM (EST):

Stu,

I think Anne wants to be heard. I am sorry to be speaking for her but I am bothered when we try to imagine what other motives that people have other than what they tell us. I think she is upset about bishops that don’t listen and are out of touch with the people they rule over. I think she keeps writing because she think its immoral to not treat women who may die as a result of a pregnancy. And she might be frustrated at Catholics who simply say, “this is the rule of our club so screw you.” Ok, maybe, that last part is just me.

Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Joanie on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:04 PM (EST):

So then Anne and commonweal etc you would argue that our medical capabilities are best or ideally employed when in the service of death? So the practice of medicine was called in to, “hasten” the death of the child? The child was going to die anyway, that is your point? So fine, if we accept this limited one time gruesome situation, that the hospital merely hastened the death of one already dying, then, what could be the problem with the hospital, a., withdrawing participation in a healthcare network which is immoral and b., agreeing to catechesis? Sr. McBride and the hospital’s “pride”? Would commonweal and Anne Rice prefer a pronouncement from the pulpit that the Church is now in the business of hastening death if the medical means provide the opportunity and the value judgement can be worked out? I don’t think we want to live in that type of a world which does not offer enhanced teachings of mercy or of Jesus or particularly connotes anything Christian. The most pagan of cultures are all quite capable of hastening the death of another when the means permit, all by themselves. It is the voice of the Church which is a conscience. No one is celebrating and Ms. Rice and commonweal are living on another planet if they believe that they can milk the public for sympathy at the blood of this woman’s tragic story to serve what is their political agenda to demolish legitimate Church hierarchy. I guess they are way too cynical to accept the Bishop at his word: that he prayed that this day would never come. Seven or eight years seems extremely than conciliatory. No one here is triumphant except for Ms. Rice quoting commonweal and the like who are out to demonize the Church yet again. Surprise, surprise but excessively liberal bishops assure to the Catholicity of the institutions in their diocese as well. As Ms. Rice I invite all to read up. The reality is that it is not only Bishop Olmstead but all of the bishops who advanced the standards for Catholic hospitals. Death hastening, abortion, euphemism or not, call it what you will. But in seven or eight years clearly a hospital that wished to retain Catholic status could have compromised just a little bit. Like I said, Sr. McBride and the hospital are not seeking our sympathy. They have made a calculated decision and are looking to the voices of some to attempt to soften the fallout.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:02 PM (EST):

Stu, I continue to post
because there is obviously
so much confusion here on these issues,
and so much controversy.
It gives me no pleasure to repeat myself, but
I think it is important in a discussion such as
this to remain above the nastier blog posts
and remain focused on the case as we know it
and the important moral issues involved.
I’m sorry that the posts have seemed repetitive.
I do not know of any other way to deal with the moral issues.

You consistently ignore that the patient’s complete chart is NOT available or public record. The accounts that have been released are done to support a position. Why can’t you acknowledge that everyone is still in the dark regarding this situation, even you? You say this case is not easy to understand and yet you’re choosing sides without complete information. Don’t you think this is a contradiction?

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 11:00 PM (EST):

Carolyn, I will like to add this;
another aspect of this entire story
has to do with the way Catholics responded to it publicly,
those who criticized the bishop, and those who criticized
Sr. McBride.
Some pretty chilling things were written by those
who felt that Sister should not have saved the dying
mother. And a lot of that was very hard for me personally
to read.
I continue to respond to the story because I think it is
so important on a number of levels,
but it is not easy to read some of the rhetoric on
these blogs.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:57 PM (EST):

Carolyn, I am not sure how this should have been handled.
I would say, looking back on it, it would have been better
if the Bishop had waited on a full investigation of the incident
and a larger fuller statement as to the facts of the case had been prepared.
As you can see from this blog, this is not an easy case to understand.
If one does not believe the version that has been given to us,
that complicates the entire matter even more.
I do indeed think that the bishop has driven people away.
New stories and blog stories indicate that this happened.
As for myself, after 12 years of intense study of Catholic history,
theology and Scripture, I was on the brink of leaving when this
story broke. And it was very nearly the last straw.
I left the church for complex theological reasons, but this
story was at the center of it.
Again, perhaps the bishop should have done a more thorough
investigation; perhaps more details and facts should have been
revealed (while protecting the anonymity of the mother).
But alas, that didn’t happen, and the statements that were made
led to considerable confusion.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:55 PM (EST):

Thanks for the commonweal reference Anne:)

Carolyn Hyppolite

Posted by Stu on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:54 PM (EST):

Miss Rice,

Your continued posting of a repetitive nature almost makes me think you are trying to convince yourself of what you are saying.

Posted by Abscissio on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:52 PM (EST):

My post to Grace56 got submitted accidentally.

You, Grace56, are the petulant child here, not Ms. Rice. Unlike you, Ms. Rice and the others who are speaking out against a gross injustice. You have manipulated the facts to suit your preposterous claims, of which you know nothing. You do greater harm to your cause by doing so.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:49 PM (EST):

Anne and anyone else who feels that they can answer this question,

As a pro-life Catholic, I don’t like the way this has been handled and I don’t like the press it has gotten. I am sure the bishop means well but I fear that his effort at discipline has driven more people away. How do you think situations like this should be handled? How can the laity be heard?

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite

Posted by Abscissio on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:47 PM (EST):

Grace56, you failed to provide the full quote from America Magazine re. the mother’s health status. I have italicized what you provided, and have put the second paragraph that you purposely neglected to provide in boldface. In the fall of 2009, a 27-year-old woman with four children was admitted to St. Joseph Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Ariz., because of her worsening symptoms of pulmonary hypertension. Knowing that she was about ten weeks pregnant, doctors advised her that the safest course was to terminate the pregnancy, but she rejected this proposal. The fact that she chose a Catholic hospital for treatment suggests that she did not want an abortion.

As the woman’s condition deteriorated, a cardiac catherization revealed that she suffered from “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output” and “right heart failure” and “cardiogenic shock,” according to report later compiled by the hospital’s ethics committee. In other words, the medical staff believed that both mother and child would die if the present situation were allowed to continue. Thus, termination of the pregnancy was recommended and agreed to by the mother. Because of her serious condition, she could not be moved to another hospital.

Deceptively utilizing only the first paragraph, you state: “Note this doesn’t sound remotely like a emergency. In fact it is looking like CHW let an emergency develop. (not surprising I have the unfortunate experience of being a patient in CHW I avoid them like the plague).”

Really, you think it doesn’t remotely sound like an emergency when she has reduced cardiac output (meaning her heart isn’t beating), right heart failure (her heart is no longer supplying blood to the lungs), and cardiogenic shock (it is so damaged it isn’t supplying blood to the organs).

Are you so profoundly stupid that you do not understand she’s having a massive heart attack here?

And your qualifications are what? You certainly do not have the writing skills to construct a sound and supportable argument and were foolish enough to link to the article which describes the critical situation in better detail than I have seen anywhere.

You continue your absurd argument:

I will repeat what I said before. I suspect this treatment was done simply
becuase it was cheaper and what the insurance would pay for. Not what is in the best interest of the mother and child. Anne’s hatred of the Catholic church is consuming her. So much so that she has become irrational.

She sounds like a a petulant child stomping her foot in frustration because he can’t get her way;(that big mean Bishop why can’t I (i.e. “the
hospital”) kill who I want.

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:46 PM (EST):

Anne, any hospital that chooses to perform procedures that are contrary to the teachings of the Church (sterilizations, providing contraception, performing abortions) is not a “winner”. Unless you are disputing the fact that St. Joseph’s participates in these, there is no discussion here. These things are all antithetical to Church teaching, and they refuse to stop doing them.

If the reference in Commonweal is correct, and the child was dying, that still does not allow the intentional killing of the child. That would be euthanasia, which is also a moral evil. I think the point that is being missed is that the intentional taking of an innocent life is ALWAYS evil. You may never directly and intentionally take an innocent life. This is what Bishop Olmsted is referencing in regards to the ERDs. They suggest times where it is acceptable for the child to die, but only as a secondary result of a procedure that does not intend the death of the child.

Posted by Harrison on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:46 PM (EST):

Anne: About the post where you commented about “the least of these.” That’s a rather evil application of Our Lord’s words. A human life was saved? At what cost? A human life was taken! If the woman was the least and the baby was the most, and somebody had to die, at least it was the most and not the least, eh? Deep moral wisdom. Also, “don’t hit ‘enter’ to force line breaks” it says in the instructions.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:43 PM (EST):

Carolyn, I appreciate your post.
I have no objections to any religion making its moral
view points known to the world.
I believe that when a religion does make its viewpoints
known to the world, those views may become of concern to
the world.
Those of us in the world have a right to respond to those viewpoints.
I support the religion in offering its views.
I suppose those critics who feel they must stand up to the religion.
The hospital has made it abundantly clear that the woman
was indeed on the brink.
The report of M.Therese Lysaught of the entire incident is now
available on Commonweal, and anyone can read it there, as far as I know.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:43 PM (EST):

Has anyone found the hospital’s statement?

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:40 PM (EST):

Everett, I must disagree with you.
The good Catholics of St. Joseph’s Hospital have
won. There is every indication that they do believe
themselves bound by the teachings of the Church,
and that they support Sr. McBride for having done
the right thing as a Catholic.
This is abundantly clear.
I would say Catholics are definitely the winners here.
It is sad that anyone must win or lose, but Bishop Olmsted
started this war, and St. Joseph’s has survived it.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:39 PM (EST):

Anne,

I am sorry about some of the nasty comments directed towards you by some posters. They have not reflected appropriate Christian charity.

But I am wondering why are you so confident that the hospital did the right thing? I am not saying that they did the wrong thing but we really don’t know. I am not suggesting that women should have martyrdom imposed on them but we really don’t know how sick she was. It doesn’t sound to me that she was on the brink. I am concerned that hospitals might be become so reliant on abortion that they don’t explore treatments for both mother and child.

Second, I am concerned about the process by which the bishop gets to make this decision without a public hearing. It seems to me that the bishop does not buy the hospital’s claim but he has not provided us with any medical alternatives. All of this make this very frustrating for me. I wonder if there would be less upset within the Catholic commununity if these problems could be worked out through a more democratic or at least more transparent process?

Lastly, Anne, you seem very upset that the Church wants to impose her will on the public. I am not sure that I would say impose. The Church does have a responsibility to proclaim the gospel to the world. It is not imposing to say that certain activities are morally wrong and that it would be more morally wrong to enshrine them into law. Do you think the Church should be silent about what goes on the world? Should they not condemn unjust wars, abortion, torture, etc.? What prophetic responsibility to do you believe that Christians have before God?

The medical records ARE NOT released. You can obviously see that the only accounts that are going to be released are those that benefit each other’s arguments for many reasons (i.e. medical liability, etc…). You’re swinging in the air. Unless the medical record is ever released, which MOST likely won’t because of privacy laws, you DON’T know the facts. It’s that simple.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:37 PM (EST):

Here is a quote from M. Therese Lysaught’s report on the case of
the dying mother and fetus at St. Joseph’s Hospital.
Read the whole report at Commenweal. See Grant Gallicho’s article,
link in my last post above.

“in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.”

Posted by David B. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:36 PM (EST):

Here’s one way to look at this issue. If a certain teenage mother had needed similar care from this hospital many, many years ago, what would have happened?

Mary and Joseph, unlike this institution, knew that respect for the sanctity of unborn life is a foundation stone of basic goodness. Thank God them and all they did to demonstrate that belief.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:33 PM (EST):

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=11494

Please by all means consult the article posted today by
Commonweal. Apparently not only was the mother dying,
but the baby was dying as well.

The article is entitled: The Moral Analysis Rejected by
Bishop Olmsted by Grant Gallicho. December 21, 2010

Posted by Tim J. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:31 PM (EST):

I’m interested to know if Ms. Rice would expect a Catholic hospital to perform a sex change operation if this was “medically recommended” treatment. She approaches saying that Catholics can believe what they like, as long as they do what they’re told (by the state).

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:29 PM (EST):

We all lose when someone chooses not to follow the teachings of the Church and when a Bishop must proclaim that they are no longer Catholic (or that they have incurred excommunication). This is not a situation involving winning. It is a tragic situation in which a hospital organization has decided that they are no longer bound by the teachings of the Church that they once claimed to belong to.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:23 PM (EST):

Womans rights = Euphemism for women to have the right to murder babies at will.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:19 PM (EST):

I have no clue what Anne meant about the Bishop losing. It seems to me when anyone stand for life and our Lord they have won. It is St Josephs who has lost. And unfortunately the patients who go to that hospital.

Posted by Joanie on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:17 PM (EST):

Anne the hospital gave the woman the abortion. So what women’s rights were threatened in the end? Others who wanted abortions but were turned away because the hospital did not, or could not, in all good conscience give an abortion on demand and then went to other places to receive the sought after non life-threatening abortion? There have been no other reported cases of women presenting themselves to this hospital with a life threatening condition such as this. You are anticipating a huge number of similar cases to turn up in the future at this particular hospital and so wish to, with the ACLU, guarantee that the woman will be victorious over her unborn every single time?

And if this was only one isolated incident, based on a hazy or flexible or one-sidedly generous interpretation of Church teaching, then why shouldn’t the hospital merely accede to the authority of the diocese to ultimately determine whether an institution is upholding the teachings of the Church? Would you prefer an announcement from Sr. McBride or the pulpit that when a similar incident happens again the hospital will always act to first abort the child, would this satisfy? But those institutions and voices are numerous in our culture and are already extremely vocal such that they call the unborn tumors, parasites, etc. The Church’s lone courageous voice is gravely needed at this time in our humanity.

Perhaps it would have worked out differently had the hospital withdrawn its support for a network which provides for artificial contraception, vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.? It seems like in seven or eight years time it would have been possible for the hospital to undergo the training and still have retained its Catholic status.

And if this is not about abortion, then what is it about exactly? Money? Clearly the Church and the diocese see none of of that revenue stream.

It is no small number who do seek out Catholic institutions, and some are willing to commute hundreds of miles to be treated at them and as consumers they are entitled to expect that a Catholic institution will uphold the teachings of the Church and not profit monetarily through practices which are not consistent with its teachings. Perhaps these are the ones, and the unborn, the Bishop is concerned about, since their voices as consumers in the healthcare offerings in this country are quite muffled and underrepresented.s

Posted by Tim J. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:15 PM (EST):

“Grace, I appreciate how much this issue means to you,
but essentially the bishop lost.”

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

The Bishop clearly knew the odds going in and did not then, and does not now coinsider it a “loss”. Many faithful Catholics - like me - consider it great victory that the Church is less and less willing to abide by the political whims of a rudderless secular society. The Church is ever the Church, and once again the rumors of her death are greatly exaggerated.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:06 PM (EST):

If the hospital has a culture of life according to Catholic doctrine I submit to you that both the mother and child would be fine today.

Unlike Anne, I’m not much of a story teller, but I am a nurse who had been both a patient at CHW as well as trained there. I am intimately familiar with the culture at that chain.

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:03 PM (EST):

First, I want to say to all those who are rejoicing at what has occurred today that division in the body of Christ is never a good thing. Even if you think that the bishop did the right thing, it is still tragic. Every time we fail to live up to Christ’s desire that we be one, it is a shameful moment for us.

Second, much has been said about the fact that Catholic hospitals receive public money. I am equally concerned about this as well. I agree that non-Catholics should not have fund our beliefs. But I am more worried about institutions being bound by non-Christian standards. It seems to me that the bishops have been insensitive to this problem. The last thing we should be talking about right now is our responsibility to the tax payers. On the other hand, the government is so large and so entangled into everything that few institutions can exist without its funding. As our society becomes both more secular and religiously diverse, I think we are going to run into more problem. We need to seriously think about what kind of policies, including tax policies, we want as Christians and citizens to assure our independence from regulations that are in conflict with our morals.

Peace in Christ,
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 10:01 PM (EST):

Anne, I understand that other Catholics supporting her can be found. How many of these other Catholics are members of the magisterium of the Catholic Church? What elements of Canon law are in support of her? I have heard nothing other than fluffy versions of WWJD, which is rather short on doctrine/Canon law, and long on polemic.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:59 PM (EST):

Anne the woman was 10 weeks pregnant when she was admitted; her child was hacked to pieces a week later.

Does anyone else see a little malpractice here? The mother clearly stated she didn’t want the abortion. It is specifically *why* see went to a Catholic Hospital.

Know what I do about how hospitals are run and specifically about CHW is run. I stand by my statement. They let her deteriorate.

Posted by Davey on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:54 PM (EST):

Liseux, Often in real life, events can become dicey, fast changing and life threatening. Of course doctors give opinions! Are you suggesting that unless an outcome is known with 100 percent certainty that a particular procedure or treatment cannot be performed? When and in what make believe world would that ever be the case? Medicine called an “art” for a reason.

It seems as though you want the case to be about doctors who can’t wait to sacrifice the life of a child for the mother. In the case of removing a diseased uterus (which canon law allows, apparently) would you also accuse the doctors involved of being in the business of killing? No? Why not? Because it is enshrined in canon law? Who wrote canon law? God himself? Then I would even argue with God in that case!

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:52 PM (EST):

It was quite clear from the article I posted that this developed over a week. Don’t believe Anne’s fiction.

I suggest she return to writing fiction about imaginary characters rather than fiction about real events.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:52 PM (EST):

Everett, I appreciate your post.
Be assured, I do indeed understand.
I remain convinced that Sr. McBride made the
right decision in light of Catholic doctrine, canon
law and the directives governing her hospital.
I’m sure you’re aware that many many Catholics
agreed with her, and articles by Catholics supporting
her can be found online.

Posted by Dan on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:50 PM (EST):

Isn’t the Sr. McBride situation a moot point now? According to the bishop, a lot of other abortions have happened in CHW and other acts that violate Catholic morality. CHW evidently plans to continue those as well. Does anybody really think the McBride abortion is representative of most abortions provided by CHW? That only in that apparently desperate situation are abortions allowed?

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:50 PM (EST):

“As the woman’s condition deteriorated, a cardiac catherization revealed that she suffered from “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output” and “right heart failure” and “cardiogenic shock,” according to report later compiled by the hospital’s ethics committee. In other words, the medical staff believed that both mother and child would die if the present situation were allowed to continue. Thus, termination of the pregnancy was recommended and agreed to by the mother. Because of her serious condition, she could not be moved to another hospital.”

The above paragraph is from the same article in America that Grace has
been quoting.
I remain behind the hospital and Sr. McBride.
Apparently some people here are completely unable to
face what happened.
May I suggest that this is telling.
Attempts to re-write the story of this young mother
are irresponsible and dishonorable.
I repeat: never has the bishop indicated that
the hospital’s version was not the true version.
He apparently made his judgment based on their version.
And that is what we have to discuss.
Not some rampant and irresponsible speculation
that the woman wasn’t dying, and the hospital is lying,
With all due respect, personal fantasies or conspiratorial speculations
are utterly beside the point.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:50 PM (EST):

It would wonderful to see a Catholic Culture once again at CHW. Right now the corporate mentality is that the patients are the enemy.

I recently was lucky to have a stay at a *true* catholic hospital, Lourdes Hospital in NJ. The Friars came to my room to pray with.for me. There was prayer over the PA system every morning. And I had Mass everyday.

It couldn’t be anymore different than what I experienced at CHW.

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:49 PM (EST):

Anne, you can’t pit the mother’s right to life against the child’s right to life. You have previously called it a “failed” pregnancy, which just isn’t accurate. The child was doing just fine until the doctors killed it.

More importantly, you seem to either not understand Catholic Moral teaching in regards to the distinction between act and intent, or seem to disagree. The act of the intentional taking of an innocent life is always evil. Hence, the killing of the child was evil. Had there been an actual treatment that might’ve resulted in the death of the child, the act would not necessarily have been evil as long as the principles of double effect were adhered to. Lastly, while the mother dying would never be a good thing, there’s a significant difference from the mother dying due to an illness, and the child being killed. The first is not a moral evil, the second is. This does not mean that the mother should be simply allowed to die, merely that the direct killing of the child is not an acceptable treatment.

“This happened in an Emergency room.
The woman was dying.
The whole point here is that her life was saved in an emergency.”

NOBODY KNOWS WHAT TRULY HAPPENED!!!!!!!!! Medical privacy laws prevent the record from being publicly released!!!!!!!

You should know better than that to claim this, considering you do research when you’ve done your books.

The fact is there was a meeting of an ethics committee to determine what action to undertake. Have you asked yourself how this could have occurred when if this was an emergency? I find it hard to believe that ANYONE knows what truly happened. Open your eyes and your heart and don’t blind yourself by any the political posturing from either side. I pray for both Sr. McBride and Bishop Olmsted and hope that God will enlighten all of us so that Christ may forgive ALL of us.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:43 PM (EST):

Grace, I appreciate how much this issue means to you,
but essentially the bishop lost.
The hospital stood up to him.
And the bishop’s loss here is significant.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:41 PM (EST):

Let me remind people here. ‘
This blog isn’t about me.
It’s about Sr. McBride, St. Joseph’s Hospital
and Bishop Olmsted.
I didn’t fictionalize accounts of what happened.
I drew on the news stories which anyone can access online
which have reported the hospital’s account of what happened.
Never has Bishop Olmsted suggested that the hospital’s account was not true.
Why some here are determined to change the story I
don’t know.
But obviously there is a strong desire on the part of some to do so.
The hospital has told us:
the woman was dying.
They saved the only life that they could.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:41 PM (EST):

ROTFLOL the Episcopal/Anglican Church and the Old Catholic church is hemorrhaging membership.

Orthodoxy is what people what. That is why the Roman and Orthodox church is growing.

Posted by Tim J. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:40 PM (EST):

GOD BLESS BISHOP OLMSTED!

Posted by Maureen on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:39 PM (EST):

I’ll remember that, the next time I’m tempted to do something quixotic like try to push somebody out of the path of an oncoming car or save someone drowning. Yup, there’s nothing worth dying for, and nothing worth the risk of dying—not even one’s own child.

Adults aren’t the ones who are supposed to risk their lives for children; it’s the other way ‘round. If the path to survival is paved with baby skulls, just keep on walkin’. That’s what real grownups do. Yeppers, it’s a beautiful and loving way to show your ethical stuff!

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:37 PM (EST):

Ann has fictionlized the story of what happend and I quote

“In the fall of 2009, a 27-year-old woman with four children was admitted to St. Joseph Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Ariz., because of her worsening symptoms of pulmonary hypertension. Knowing that she was about ten weeks pregnant, doctors advised her that the safest course was to terminate the pregnancy, but she rejected this proposal. The fact that she chose a Catholic hospital for treatment suggests that she did not want an abortion.” Note this doesn’t sound remotely like a emergency. In fact it is looking like CHW let an emergency develop. (not surprising I have the unfortunate experience of being a patient in CHW I avoid them like the plague).

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12348

I will repeat what I said before. I suspect this treatment was done simply becuase it was cheaper and what the insurance would pay for. Not what is in the best interest of the mother and child. Anne’s hatred of the Catholic church is consuming her. So much so that she has become irrational.

She sounds like a a petulant child stomping her foot in frustration because she can’t get her way;(that big mean Bishop why can’t I (i.e. “the hospital”) kill who I want.

Oh she dresses it up with her Marxist sound bytes about woman’s rights and how evil and oppressive the Catholic Church is. But anyone can see though her hysteria.

Posted by Kelly on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:34 PM (EST):

I’m overjoyed that Saint Joseph’s Hospital will continue to provide high quality, ethical healthcare to the People of God despite the harassment of Mr. Olmsted.

News to Olmsted - the Dark Ages are over. The “power and authority” You think You have is merely an illusion - a figment left over from an ignorant and often cruel period in the history of world civilization.

Roman Catholics are awaking to the Puritanical abuses that the Roman Monarchy continues to inflict. The Roman Rite of Catholicism is mired in a perverse view of human sexuality and procreation.

Wake up People of God and end the cycle of abuse. “Mother Church” should more aptly be called “Mommy Dearest”. Emancipate yourselves and end the spiritual abuse being burdened upon you.

Join one of the many other Catholic Rites that are accepting and nurturing. Independent Catholic Churches are valid and adhere to Catholic tradition and the Sacraments. The Old Dutch Catholic Church is only one among many. Do some research and follow your heart.

This is from Wikipedia: The Old Catholic Church is a Christian denomination originating with groups that split from the Holy See because they disagreed with essential doctrines. The church is not in communion with the Holy See, though the Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion[1] and a member of the World Council of Churches.[2]

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:31 PM (EST):

Liseux, I am not here to discuss abortion.
This issue is about a woman’s right to life.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:28 PM (EST):

Davey, I think your questions are right on.
There are many hair splitting aspects to this whole
thing.
I believe canon law can do a much better job of
dealing with the particular problems pregnant women
face when a pregnant is fatal and failing.
And I think frankly that in future canon wall
will be revised and change, in light of experiences
women have had in the last fifty years or so.
But right now, there are quite incredible problems with
the church’s handling of all this.
Sr. McBride believed she was doing right by canon law and
the directives governing her hospitals.
Others do not.
One thing is clear from this blog.
People have a hard time, apparently, really grasping what is
at stake here.
This is not about abortion.
It is about a woman’s right to save her own life from a
pregnancy which she cannot survive and cannot save.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:25 PM (EST):

Davey, it was not determined that the mother would die for certain.

As another poster on here said- doctors give opinions, they are not prophets. And…. they’re also supposed to be in the business of healing, not killing.

It was for certain that the child would die once Sister gave her approval.

I’m going to print out Diane, Eric, and Prof. Petric’s posts from before; they are superbly explanatory and Anne has never been able to respond to their medical information.

If you can find those posts from earlier today, they will be helpful if you want to see the issue in its entirety.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:24 PM (EST):

Joanie, I’ve tried to explain this before.
I’m concerned with the rights of women to
health care.
I feel the Bishop threatened the rights of women here,
and that the hospital stood up for those rights.
I am not concerned one way or the other with
the label Catholic.
I am concerned with public hospitals respecting the
rights of women.
This is a moral issue and a legal issue.
i’m not sure what you are asking me.
I’ve made it plain, haven’t I, why I am posting here.
I think it’s a crucial life and death issue.
I applaud the hospital for its stance.
I applaud Sr. McBride.
I can’t really understand what you are asking me.
Perhaps you can explain.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:21 PM (EST):

Yes, I believe he is the doctor that filmed “Silent Scream.”

Thanks for the link.

Posted by Davey on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:21 PM (EST):

So in this case—to be in accordance with canon law (of which, BTW, I have read there is some dispute in the interpretation in cases such as this)... to take the Bishop’s stance, the result would be the death of both the mother and the child. This is really a horribly wrong-headed stance for the church to take. No wonder it (the hierarchy, that is) seems to be becoming more and more anachronistic, and out of touch with reality !

According to hair-splitting canon law (written when? I would like to know) it is permissible to end a pregnancy in a case of, say, cancer of the uterus. This is because the diseased organ is the uterus itself. For some reason that makes it OK to end the pregnancy. But not in a case of pulmonary hypertension. In pulmonary hypertension, the condition is caused (I’m not a doc, so correct me if I am wrong here pls :-) , or if not caused, exacerbated by the pregnancy. So if you are dying and you are lucky enough to have diseased uterus, OK, we’ll save you. But if your pulmonary system is failing: too bad, you die. How stupid is this?

Posted by Charles E. Flynn on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:19 PM (EST):

The June 1996 issue of “Crisis” magazine has an article about Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s conversion:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/bernconv.txt

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:18 PM (EST):

Arguing for keeping Roe v. Wade is an odd way of expressing your pro-life point of view.

By keeping it legal, Anne, you add to 53 million dead.

If abortion is so horrible, Anne, then making it illegal would help to put an end to the 1.3 million done in America.

If you’re really for “life” then you should work to protect it.

Don’t you think?

I could say that slavery is horrible, but then advocate it as a “necessary evil,” and the slaves would say I am pro-slavery and promoting evil.

Posted by joanie on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:17 PM (EST):

But, Anne, the woman did receive her abortion and lived, the result you prefer. So when I say, “what’s it to you?” I mean, if you care about healthcare and women’s rights, then, wouldn’t the hospital now be more enabled, to perform abortions, dispense contraception, perform tubal ligation, vasectomy, etc., minus the word, Catholic? So why do you care whether it uses the appellation of Catholic ultimately? You have left the Church and indeed are no longer Christian. No one questions your right to speak up, Christian or not, or your right to do good deeds in the world, in the name of Christianity, yourself, or no one at all. Why should you care whether the label remains?

Sr. McBride according to her interpretation believed the hospital was not technically performing direct, intentional abortion and over seven or so years justified their actions in this way. If they wished to finally remain Catholic which designates that Bishops be ultimately held accountable for such interpretations, why not merely admit to a mistake. Really all the Bishop asked for was that the institution undergo some sort of catechesis or training to insure that the faith was adhered to. That seems quite reasonable. Perhaps in fact they did not wish to remain a Catholic institution in which case they seem ready and willing to let the chips fall where they may and carry on. There was no “harm” in the sense that you and the ACLU seem most concerned about in that the woman got the abortion in the end. So if they are no longer Catholic don’t they wind up with all the “goodies” you so earnestly and righteously argue for?

It is not the Bishop’s whim out of thin air that a Catholic hospital ought not dispense contraception, perform abortion etc etc etc but the faithful teaching of the Church. Many Catholics prefer a healthcare system that adheres to this moral program. Not all Catholic women wish to have their bodies controlled by synthetic hormones so of course an authentically Catholic hospital or healthcare enterprise would have many willing consumers. The Church is not governed by vote or consensus and it is a relief that it is not so governed. Sr McBride obviously assented to it when she made her vows as a religious.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:14 PM (EST):

Liseux,
I am pro life and always have been.
I want to remain focused on the case of Sr. McBride
and the Bishop of Phoenix.
Abortion is being discussed in other places and
those discussions will continue.
What matters here is the case of the dying
mother in the Phoenix Emergency room,
and whether or not it was right to save her life.
Should she have been condemned to death with her unborn child?
Or should she have been allowed to save herself from a
failing and fatal pregnancy?
That is the issue here: the value of a woman’s life.
I believe Sr. McBride was right in doing what she did
for this woman.
I applaud the hospital for standing up to the bishop.

This is not about abortion. It never was.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:10 PM (EST):

Also, Dr. Bernard Nathanson became pro-life, and is a staunch Christian. (I believe he is Catholic, but I’m not 100% certain.)

Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of the case tired of being treated badly by the pro-aborts, and now is a Catholic pro-life activist.

Thanks be to God for their witness and conversions.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:06 PM (EST):

I am a student of history too, Anne, and Roe v. Wade is based on lies.

For example, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, talks about how he LIED to medical and govt. authorities about the number of illegal abortions going so that abortion would be legalized:

“I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.”

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:57 PM (EST):

Paul H, I think the hospital remains
Catholic.
It’s stance is reflective of many Catholics who
do not agree with the Bishop’s judgment in the case.
There is no consensus amongst Catholics on this issue.
Numerous articles online indicate Catholics have disagreed
publicly with Bishop Olmsted.
The hospital has stood up to the man bravely,
and remains Catholic.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:54 PM (EST):

The Huffington Post has just published an article on this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/ariz-hospital-loses-catho_n_799863.html

Let’s hope more national papers will take an interest.
The issues here are vital to women’s rights.
And to good health care in America for all.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:54 PM (EST):

Anne Rice on Abortion

I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms

...And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history – that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

...I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

...Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—- that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

Posted by Paul H on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:53 PM (EST):

I wish that this situation did not have to come to the point of revoking the hospital’s Catholic identity, but nevertheless, Bishop Olmsted did what he had to do. I support him for doing the right thing in a bad situation.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:53 PM (EST):

Joanie,
I feel all Americans need to be concerned with what happened
at St. Joe’s and with the Bishop’s stand against Sr. McBride and
the hospital.
I think this is of deep concern.
It has to do with life and death, and it is not simply a “Catholic”
issue. It has to do with all women in America who might
be treated in Catholic hospitals.
I feel I must speak up against the bishop, and for
Sr. McBride and the people of the hospital,
on behalf of all women.
This is really not an abortion issue.
The issue of abortion I’m sure is being discussed in many other places.
This is about women and their right to life saving care when they are
dying in a failed and fatal pregnancy.
“What it’s to you?” you ask.
It is everything, because it is about my fellow human beings.
Traditionally in Western culture, we agonize over issues of life and
death. We do not “cast a cold eye” on life and death and pass on.
We speak up, from the heart and from the soul, for the marginalized
and the persecuted and the abused.
I urge all who read this blog to be concerned with what has happened here today,
with the courage of St. Joseph’s to stand up to the Bishop for what
they believe is right.
I certainly will contact the ACLU of course, and I am also contacting as
many national journalists as I can in the hope that they will write on
this matter.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:51 PM (EST):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPq4RkUzkdY

“Being with Christians is Like Being with the Devil” ~ Anne Rice

Remember those who promote evil are offended by good

Posted by joanie on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:44 PM (EST):

Anne, I really don’t think that Sr. McBride or the hospital administration needs you to speak on their behalf. They are most able and have stated their case over seven or eight years now and apparently their case includes more than immediately meets the eye. They wish to dispense contraception, do tubal ligation and vasectomies etc. etc. If it is access to abortion you care about then there are many places that will assure this continues on, as the laws of the country already guarantee it and even Christian leaders and politicians swear they will insure it. So what’s it to you whether the hospital is in fact Catholic in what they do or don’t do or not? And if you believe that conscientious objection for individuals who object to the procedure, on demand, is appropriate then why not advocate to the ACLU to assist in representation in that area as well?

Posted by Patty on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:35 PM (EST):

Thanks be to God for Bishop Olmsted’s courageous decision. Now, if we need to enter this hospital our eyes will be open knowing that it is not a Catholic hospital. We will know NOT to trust that care for ourselves and our loved ones will be decided within the framework of our Catholic Faith.

Thank you Bishop Olmsted for protecting your flock from being led astray. I will keep you and all our faithful shepherds in my prayers as you continue to guard, guide, protect, defend and heal us in mind and body and spirit.

Posted by Sheila Harris on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:35 PM (EST):

God Bless you, save the babies!!!

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:32 PM (EST):

67, you like to hide the dirty deeds and details about them in the dark also? (Thanks, Anne, for pointing out his remark.)

Does it disturb you to know that one out of three children nationwide are DEAD due to something “legal”?

The FACT that abortion has killed one out of three children in the womb should be information that all people know. Why does that sound so *inane* to you, since abortion in the most frequently performed surgery in the U.S. (according to the National Health Studies in Atlanta, GA)?

Many Americans withdrew in horror at the barbaric descriptions of partial-birth abortion. That brought much-needed attention to the pro-life cause.

Sonograms are one of the best witnesses to the cause as well.

That’s why more people are pro-life now than ever since 1973.

Posted by Grace56 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:30 PM (EST):

Anne wrote “And I feel bound by conscience to speak up again evil.”

Spot the irony

Posted by elmtree on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:22 PM (EST):

Thank God for this Bishop.

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:03 PM (EST):

Barb, you should check your facts. Bishop Olmsted is one of the most proactive bishops in regards to the priest abuse scandal. I love (read: hate) how anytime abortion is brought up, the Church is automatically accused of being ok with sex abuse and not interested in serving the poor. It is an all of the above approach. Bishop Olmsted is tough on abuse accusations, tough on abortion, and dedicated to serving the poor. It is a tactic of Satan to try and play two goods against one another to give the impression of a lack of faithfulness. Bishop Olmsted has also been very strong on immigration reform, a fact that some who are more interested in being Republican than Catholic have been angry at him for.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 8:00 PM (EST):

67,
I think you are certainly right in your comments on
liseux’s comment about what her children “know”
about abortion.
One has to speculate: what does the abortion issue
really mean to some Catholics?
How do they “use” this issue?
And is this church really pro-life?
I would say after considerable study,
that no, this church is not pro-life at all.
It is anti-abortion certainly.
Pro life no.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:57 PM (EST):

Bob Kostanick,
I think you have raised a valid point here.
The Catholic Church’s failure to “handle” the
worldwide abuse scandal has crippled it almost fatally.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:56 PM (EST):

Rita, my reasons for publicly walking away from
organized religion were nothing so simple as you indicate,
but I can well understand why you might not know about these
issues.
But for anybody who does want to know, they can visit
my website, Anne Rice.com. They will find my original statements
and subsequent interviews in which I was given a chance to talk
about my decision.
I was quite open in those interviews, and in others, about how
much Bishop Olmsted’s position on Sr. McBride influenced my
leaving all organized religion in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I resist talking about myself personally in these blogs.
I attempt to stay focused on the subject and do not question others
as to their “real” identity or personal lives.

Posted by Barb Kostanick on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:51 PM (EST):

Too bad that bishops like this one didn’t feel nearly so strongly about taking action when their priests were sodomizing thousands of young Catholics. That’s a situation that cried out for prompt and direct action, and what we saw was repeated denial, hiding, and protection of the guilty while the victims were left to deal with it as best they could. Sr. McBride and St. Joseph’s faced an urgent medical crisis and sought to save the mother’s life as best they could. And that’s the act that the bishop decides to publicize. Because priests who sodomize Catholic youth aren’t nearly the problem that one tragic medical situation is.

Posted by rita on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:40 PM (EST):

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought Ms. Rice left Christ’s Church because of the slant Jesus Christ took on sodomy. Oh well, I suppose one heresy is as good as another.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:39 PM (EST):

Lisa,
the Catholic Church seeks to influence everybody.
It seeks to influence the quality of medical care in
America.
It speaks to the whole world.
It has never confined its teachings to its own congregations.
It is deeply involved in politics in this country and always
has been.
I think it is a matter of conscience to speak up when one
feels the Catholic Church is providing a bad or immoral
influence.
I am sorry you are offended. But conscience requires me to
speak up for Sr. McBride and for the Sisters of Mercy
and for St. Joseph’s Hospital.

Posted by 67 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:37 PM (EST):

Eternal thanks to Anne Rice for stripping away the religious mumbo jumbo from this issue and for telling it like it is. The press release from St. Joseph’s clearly shows that Ms. Rice has provided us with the real facts from the outset.

I have read some nonsensical comments with regard to this issue but the one that takes the cake is the quote from liseux who says, “My children know that one third of their classmates have been murdered nationwide, and they let others know as well.” To fill our children with this sort of inane sick and totally false propaganda will only serve to damage the Catholic Church rather than enhance it.

Here is a link to a recent article about the ACLU and their concerns in this matter.

Posted by Lisa on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:36 PM (EST):

To Anne Rice,
For someone who claims to no longer be a Catholic and wants absolutely nothing to do with The Catholic Church, you certainly can’t keep from running on and on as though you are some type of authority on The Catholic Church. It only proves how poorly you were catechized! The fact that you actually believe that women are not revealed within the Catholic Church is such a pity! I’ll pray for you and hope that you will not be successful at poisoning another soul with the garbage you spew!

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:35 PM (EST):

The issue has been raised here that
this hospital did not have a legal obligation to save this mother’s life,
that apparently “conscience clauses” allow a hospital to
stand by and watch a mother die in a failed and fatal pregnancy.
I am exploring these issues.
If this is true, then obviously this matter is far more grave
than I ever realized.
I thank the person who brought this to my attention.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:33 PM (EST):

Jose, the hospital told us the woman was dying.
If we challenge the story, we are talking about another case.
I continue to remain focused on the case as we know it.
I do not recall ever characterizing Bishop Olmsted in
any particular way.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:30 PM (EST):

What they did in the dark has been brought to light, Diane. (BTW, great website you have.)

If the hospital adminstrators and executives on the board chose these practices, it’s sad.

But I have great hope because we have an American bishop who is standing up for the life of the unborn AND we have Catholics supporting him wholeheartedly.

Posted by JohnE on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:30 PM (EST):

Shame on CHW for forcing Bishop Olmsted to make this decision.

Posted by Jose Bague on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:29 PM (EST):

Anne:

I understand what you are saying. But we are going to have to agree to disagree. You are entitled to support Sr. McBride. I disagree with your position that the U.S. Government should force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions even in situations such as this one. I also disagree with your characterization of Bishop Olmsted as if he was some heartless and uncaring person who was unconcerned with women’s health care. He never said that the woman in question should have been left to suffer and die. I believe no one in this discussion has advocated that. The Catholic Church believes that everyone has a right to affordable health care. What Bishop Olmsted is saying is that both the Mother and the unborn child had a right to receive health care. However, the Hospital chose to perform a direct abortion, as if terminating a pregnancy was like removing a tumor. The Hospital did not perform a life saving procedure that indirectly caused the death of an unborn child. I support women’s health care and I oppose abortion even in a situation such as this because there were options available to save a mother’s life without directly aborting her child.

Also, like to pint out that there was much more in the Bishop’s statement than this particular abortion case. There were voluntary sterilizations raking place along with other things. This case just put a spotlight on the anti-Catholic practices that were taking place in this now formerly Catholic hospital.

What concerns me here is health care for women,
that they not be discriminated against….

.
And we are concerned with the health of woman and the unborn baby.

.
My earlier point was dismissed that if hospitals would stop using outdated medical advice and start looking seriously at what IS working for those shooting for a win-win medical science would advance.

.
To ignore successful doctors and programs today would be like rejecting the use of the heart-lung machine invented “yesterday” on the basis that a dying patient might die.

.
Anne Rice, et al, will continue to advocate the use of abortion in Catholic hospitals for PH while the rest of us continue to challenge those hospitals to find win-win solutions.

.
For any woman who is pregnant, or may become pregnant, know that open-minded, win-win oriented doctors who want to save mother and baby in cases of PH, are succeeding. Here again is the link I provided earlier.

.
http://www.wisn.com/health/17994163/detail.html

Posted by rita on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:21 PM (EST):

It has been my experience often those most vociferous in their condemnation Christ’s Church, in matters like abortion, do so from the depth of their guilt. Rather than repent and obey they defend the indefensible.

Posted by ER on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:20 PM (EST):

I also note for the record that Anne keeps attempting to change the facts to fit her theory.

First, although she has been challenged on this claim on another thread, Anne continues to claim that the events happened in an emergency room. I ask her (again) to show where the hospital (or anybody who knows) has said that this was an emergency situation or the abortion was performed in an emergency room. (Not that an emergency would allow a hospital to kill a baby.) They had time to run this through the ethics committee. That is not an ER situation.

Second, the hospital’s claim that “it saved the only life it could save” is *not medical data*. It is a *medical opinion*, and medical opinions do not have to be deferred to or taken on faith. That is why we have medical malpractice lawsuits - doctors can be mistaken in their opinions and other doctors can disagree. That is also why people get “second opinions” about treatment. Doctors simply aren’t gods who always reach the right conclusions or are immune from questioning. Anne doesn’t want anyone to challenge the hospital’s opinion, because her moral argument and her narrative depends entirely on the notion that the mother was guaranteed to die.

Third, it wouldn’t even be *possible* for a doctor to guarantee that the mother was going to die. Doctors work with guesses about probabilities, not certainties. So the situation *could not* have been the stark “mother’s life or the child’s” dilemma that the hospital has attempted to present it as. Instead we had a hospital murdering one person in order to lower what it perceived to be a great risk of death to another person. That is the moral situation that the Bishop correctly analyzed. A person is not allowed to murder even if it will save the life of that person or the life of another.

Posted by SteveG on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:20 PM (EST):

God bless the bishop, and all the bishops that are teaching the Truth which the Church was created to safeguard and teach. Hopefully, one day all these “catholics” will recognize the authority of the bishops and stop trying to form their own magisterium.

Posted by PSR on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:19 PM (EST):

Still is a Catholic hospital. Sure the bishop can say he’s stripping that status, but to virtually everyone who ever goes there as a patient or has a loved one beign cared for there, it will be as Catholic as the clinic in Vatican City (only cleaner).

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:15 PM (EST):

Ironically, the hospital achieved its *world-renowned* status and all the other recognition while being a “Catholic” hospital.

Contact: Lynne Reaves
(602) 406-4734
St. Joseph’s Resolved in Saving Mother’s Life,
Confident Following Bishop’s Announcement
World-renowned hospital will remain faithful to its 115 year tradition of care
Phoenix, AZ – December 21, 2010 – The leadership of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in
Phoenix is saddened today following Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s announcement that he has revoked his
endorsement of the hospital as “Catholic.” At his direction, the hospital will remove the Blessed
Sacrament from the chapel and will no longer celebrate Mass there.
“Though we are deeply disappointed, we will be steadfast in fulfilling our mission,” said Linda Hunt,
President of St. Joseph’s. “St. Joseph’s hospital will remain faithful to our mission of care, as we have for
the last 115 years. Our caregivers deliver extraordinary medical care and share an unmatched
commitment to the wellbeing of the communities they serve. Nothing has or will change in that regard.”
Hunt emphasized that the hospital will not change its name or its mission, which were both established
by the Sisters of Mercy in 1895. “St. Joseph’s will continue through our words and deeds to carry out the
healing ministry of Jesus,” Hunt said. “Our operations, policies, and procedures will not change.”
The announcement by Bishop Olmsted follows months of complex talks between the Phoenix Diocese,
the hospital, and the hospital’s parent company, Catholic Healthcare West. At issue is the life-saving care
delivered to a pregnant patient in November 2009 at St. Joseph’s. In that case, a decision was made to
terminate an 11-week pregnancy in order to save the mother’s life.
“Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a
pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible we
will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case,” said Hunt. “We continue to
stand by the decision, which was made in collaboration with the patient, her family, her caregivers, and
our Ethics Committee. Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die
whose life we might be able to save.”
About St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center
Located in the heart of Phoenix, Arizona, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center is a 697-bed, not-forprofit hospital that provides a wide range of health, social and support services with special advocacy for
the poor and underserved. St. Joseph’s is a nationally recognized center for quality tertiary care, medical
education and research. It includes the internationally renowned Barrow Neurological Institute, the Heart
& Lung Institute, St. Joseph’s Children’s Health Center, and a Level I Trauma Center verified by the
American College of Surgeons. U.S. News & World Report routinely ranks St. Joseph’s among the best
hospitals in the United States for neurology and neurosurgery.

Posted by Joe G. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:12 PM (EST):

God Bless Bishop Olmsted and the Diocese of Phoenix.

Posted by Erin Manning on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:10 PM (EST):

So, Harriet, are you saying that you think unborn babies should be killed as an act of great love for them? I’d like to hear that argument. :)

How many unborn babies do you all think Christ would agree to kill—since the pro-aborts are calling for us to focus on Him? I must have missed the section of the Gospels wherein He told us all that loving one another meant working hard for more abortions. Somehow “Christ-like compassion” and “killing unborn babies” just doesn’t seem like the same thing to me—but I’m sure you abortion fans will tell me how it all works for you.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:03 PM (EST):

Jose, I have no objection at all to any Bishop
withholding communication or excommunicating
anybody. That’s his prerogative as a Catholic bishop.
I believe Sr. Margaret McBride did right in this
case, and that she responded in the correct and moral
way to the directives governing her hospital and the
canon law behind them.
I do not believe she excommunicated herself.
I do not contest the right of the bishop to excommunicate people.
What concerns me here is
health care for women,
that they not be discriminated against,
and that they receive the health care to which they are entitled under the
laws of this country.
And I am also concerned with supporting Sr. McBride in what I think
was the right moral decision here.
I’m sorry if I did not make myself clear.
What bishops do in denying people communion or excommunicating
is certainly their business.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:01 PM (EST):

Erin, you stated, “Especially since your notion of women’s rights and women’s freedom is predicated upon the belief that unborn children *must* be expendable. You always have pitted the mother against her child, instead of seeing the mother as the natural protector of and champion of her child.”

How insightful.

True femininty would not pit the mother against the child, only a feminism that eventually consumes itself.

It has amazed me how the graying feminists have not come out en masse to denounce sex-selective abortions.

One would think that the mass slaughter of little girls in the womb would draw an huge outcry. Nope- hardly a peep.

In the name of protecting their most precious *right,* abortion, they’ve been rendered uselss to defend little girls in the womb worldwide who’ve been murdered just because the ultrasound failed to detect a penis on the child.

And that’s one reason why a majority of Americans now call themselves “pro-life” for the first time in decades.

Posted by Iowander on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 7:01 PM (EST):

To those that think Catholic hospitals shouldn’t be able to deny patients certain kinds of procedures, do you also think that all hospitals should be required to support NaPro Technology?

I owe the lives of my three children to NaPro progesterone monitoring and treatment. Standard OB practice is to refuse progesterone treatment during pregnancy unless there have been three miscarriages. NaPro calls for simple proactive testing which identified our problem in time to treat it. Most OBs would require that all three of my children be dead before they’d consider the right course of treatment. Who’s concerned about saving lives here?

Posted by Ran Valerhon on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:57 PM (EST):

What a lively, loving, Christlike thread - just in time for Christmas. let me contribute!
Olmstead has attempted to exercise church authority over American law and has been rebuffed. Further, he has invited greater scrutiny of all institutions with Catholic affiliations in the USA. Sister McBride and the hospital acted properly. The loss here will be for the church, not the hospital. They are still St. Josephs, will still minister to the sick and dying without permission from Olmstead.
Catholic Defender - the imagery of torn-apart babies, plundered homes and raped wives actually adds a lot to this discussion - it shows the sane people what religious zealots are like and why the church is slowly self-destructing. Ditto for Figgles who seems obsessed with wormwood and cannibalism of the unborn. Quite creepy.
Finally - if Catholics everywhere, regardless of their brand, focused on Christ instead of a vengeful and petty Old Testament God, their church would be walking in the right direction, and would have some true moral authority. Fortunately, many Catholics do understand this.

Posted by Harriet on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:56 PM (EST):

@Erin said “Boy, you all really hate that the Catholic Church sees in an unborn child a human being fully worthy of life, respect, and love, don’t you? Especially since your notion of women’s rights and women’s freedom is predicated upon the belief that unborn children *must* be expendable.”

Didn’t take long, but now we’re here. The last refuge of the crazy Catholic who has run out of (or never posessed) anything intelligent to say: tell ‘em they hate babies.

Posted by Jose Bague on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:56 PM (EST):

Anne:

The Bishops have the right and duty to “bind and loose” pursuant to the directives of Jesus Christ Himself in the Gospels. I believe you would agree with me that the authority to excommunicate and/or deny communion is not a misguided practice. After all, isn’t it true that Archbishop Joseph Rummel from the Archdiocese of New Orleans threatened opponents of desegregation of the schools in Orleans Parish with excommunication in the early 1960s? It was in part due to Rummel’s decision that racial segrgation in the Archdiocese was put to an end.

If you are against “elective abortion”, then you should not have a problem with Bishops who withhold communion from politicians who are in favor of elective abortions.

In the case of the Arizona Hospital, the abortion was contrary to Catholic doctrine since proper medical care should have been provided to both the Mother and the unborn child. The Bishop was well within his rights to order that Catholic Mass not be celebrated at the Hospital.

Posted by iasd123 on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:53 PM (EST):

In regards to the Priest issue, Bishop Olmsted has addressed this issue in the Diocese of Phoenix!
If you need an explanation, google Dale Fushek for an example!

Posted by Erin Manning on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:53 PM (EST):

Nope. The howling mob is fine with abortion. We have had over 52 million babies killed via abortion since Roe v. Wade.

And the mob *got* the abortion. The baby you all hated so much is dead. Whee—go celebrate.

But the bishop does have the right to point out that killing babies isn’t a Catholic value, and to order the Molochian hospital to quit representing itself as Catholic.

Amazingly enough, the howling mob is *not* fine with that. Boy, you all really hate that the Catholic Church sees in an unborn child a human being fully worthy of life, respect, and love, don’t you? Especially since your notion of women’s rights and women’s freedom is predicated upon the belief that unborn children *must* be expendable. You always have pitted the mother against her child, instead of seeing the mother as the natural protector of and champion of her child. And so long as the Church contradicts that selfish and hateful belief of yours, and gets in the way of your blood lust, you’ll keep right on howling.

The point of that last post was to demonstrate who is really changing the subject.

.
My post was relevant to the subject at hand. Anne Rice is not the arbiter who determines what is and isn’t relevant in this discussion, though I do think she may have made more comments in the threads about this topic than Jimmy has made blogposts (and has repeated Sr. McBride’s name more times than I can count.

Posted by Harriet on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:41 PM (EST):

Stud-dunker, do you really think you’re talking to the vampire lady?

Posted by Scott W. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:39 PM (EST):

“The current situation adds to my concern that this is a war being waged against women.”

And if the unborn child is a girl, how does deliberately killing her a blow against the war against women?

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:38 PM (EST):

Lance A, I think you are right.
The Bishop did just what the howling mob wanted.

Posted by Lance A on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:37 PM (EST):

@Erin said “Bishop Olmstead deserves our support, prayers, and gratitude. It’s easy to do what the howling mob wants.” Funny how we have different ideas of just who the howling mob is. I think he did exactly what the howling mob wanted.

In response to this earlier post of mine: Posted by Diane at Te Deum Laudamus on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 3:28 PM (EST):
As long as a hospital wants to follow outdated medical advice on pulmonary hypertension in pregnant women, there is no need for them to aim for a win-win. They will always be locked into a win-lose solution thinking the alternative is likely a lose-lose.
.
Here is a doctor, who as of 2008 has not lost a single, pregnant mother, or unborn baby, to PH.
.
http://www.wisn.com/health/17994163/detail.html
.
Any hospital which does not take the time to study these kinds of successes is just absolving itself of the need to aim higher.

.
Anne Rice opened her response This way: I say beware of those here trying to “change” the official story.

.
She then comes back later with this dig, among others peppered in throughout her posts liseux,
I would say you are seeing the John Paul II generation slowly destroy the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

Posted by studdunker on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:35 PM (EST):

Anne:
Please take your vampire money and go found your own church. I don’t need or want your telling me that the Church values the unborn over women. The Church values life over death. In light of your books I would say you are the opposite. I hope and pray for your salvation as that is the best I can do. However please do not lead others (who want to be Catholic) astray with your non-catholic rhetoric.

Posted by ER on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:34 PM (EST):

I note for the record that despite repeated claims here and elsewhere, Catholic hospitals are *not* “breaking the law” when they refuse to perform abortions. Federal conscience protection laws like the Church Amendment cover Catholic institutions’ freedom to follow their Catholic conscience. This is in fact why anti-conscience groups want to enact the Orwellianly-named “Freedom of Choice Act”; current federal law empowers Catholic hospitals to be Catholic. This Slate article from a couple of years ago provides some background for those who are interested: http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/pagenum/all/#p2.

Posted by Erin Manning on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:34 PM (EST):

Bishop Olmstead deserves our support, prayers, and gratitude. It’s easy to do what the howling mob wants. It’s hard to stand up for the truth.

The truth is that a human being was murdered in her mother’s womb. It is overwhelmingly likely that this murder did not “save” the mother’s life, as the link shared above illustrates. Perhaps one day the mother herself will realize that her child was sacrificed to the gods of expedience, and will sue the hospital for forever depriving her of her precious and irreplaceable child in this barbaric and cruel way. One can only hope so.

In the meantime, the hospital should rename itself as “Moloch Hospital West.” Those who lust after the blood of innocent unborn humans should not be ashamed to choose Moloch as their true and most fitting patron—advice I also give to those supporting the abortion on this thread. You can’t think that the God we Catholics worships likes it when you condone the ultimate iconoclasm, the shattering of His image and likeness in an innocent and helpless unborn baby, can you? No; the god you worship has always loved child sacrifice, and is glad to be paid tribute in the diabolical coin he demands from his adorers.

Posted by Abscissio on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:28 PM (EST):

Thank you for explaining the issue of barring elected officials from the sacrament, Ms. Rice. My first impression was that it was done to influence their voting and would be a sanction that would strike fear in the heart of a devout Catholic.

Influencing the vote, we have certainly seen. As you might also know, the Catholic church rushes into every country seeking to obtain women’s suffrage and mounts a campaign to deprive women of the vote. In recent times, this has been particularly true in third world nations. Here in America, the church mounted a fierce, nasty campaign against women’s suffrage, then later against the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. To those of us outside the Church, it appears to be a concerted campaign against the rights of women.

My interest here is primarily regarding the rights of women. The current situation adds to my concern that this is a war being waged against women.

Posted by Jose Bague on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:25 PM (EST):

Anne:

Even in an emergency, there is no law that obligates Hospitals to abort in situations such as this case.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:19 PM (EST):

Anne, I disagree.

It was my parent’s generation and the grandparents of many here who were Catholics asleep at the wheel when many of them were silent during years-long deliberations leading up to Roe v. Wade.

We as the JPII generation promote a Culture of Life, where even the smallest, weakest among us are to be valued.

We now have a generation of abortion survivors who realize that one in three babies nationwide is killed in the womb (Peter Kreeft, Three Approaches to Abortion, p. 55)

My children know that one third of their classmates have been murdered nationwide, and they let others know as well.

I do believe the New Evangelization has taken root in America. Are their still misinformed, mal-formed Catholics out there. Sure. The disciples in John 6 who left Jesus left over doctrinal matters and “tough issues.”

Nothing new there.

We see what the Culture of Death has done for Europe: it’s a culture that is dying because it continues to contracept, abort, sterilize, and euthanize itself to death. This is done in the name of convenience, profit, and selfishness.

There are more Catholics now than 10 years ago, even FIVE years ago that speak out and support orthodox bishops and priests.

One very great witness of this is the blog you are posting on. The National Catholic Register, along with Karl Keating’s Catholic Answers, Stephen K. Ray’s Catholic-Convert.com, are evidence of the burgeoning of a new Catholic energy of the last 20 years.

Other shining examples of the New Evangelization are Mother Angelica’s EWTN, Catholics Come Home, and the Life Teen groups nationwide- all inspiring Catholics to follow Christ and the Truth.

These weren’t around when I was a kid. Thank you God, for the New Evangelization.

It gives us great hope!

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:19 PM (EST):

Jose, I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the facts of the
case as they have been given to us.
This happened in an Emergency room.
The woman was dying.
The whole point here is that her life was saved in an emergency.
Abortion on demand is something else altogether.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:16 PM (EST):

Absicisso, I am not sure about using the word, extortion.
The church has always sought to control who can and cannot
go to Heaven, while admitting that they really can’t.
Excommunicating, and denying people the sacraments are
public gestures meant to indicate condemnation, more than anything else.
When the church had great temporal power it could excommunicate
whole communities, and threaten them with “eternal damnation” if
they did not comply with Church teaching or rules.
This was in fact fairly common.
But no one can say who in such a town is going to Heaven or Hell.
Today in a country like ours bishops have argued for denying
politicians communion, more as a means to publicly humiliate them
and condemn them, than bar them from salvation.
The church has elaborate rules about who can and cannot receive
communion.
Jesus apparently did not, by the way.
The church has been angered by politicians who support abortion and then
are filmed going to communion at Mass.
I don’t know whether it is extortion.
It is more a matter of saying, “We do not want you in our club.”
or “You do not represent what we teach.”
Since controlling or delivering a Catholic vote is of great importance
to bishops, as well as giving spiritual guidance to the flock, this is key.
The Bishop’s pulling “the Blessed Sacrament” from St. Joseph’s hospital
is a similar gesture.
I don’t know whether this is extortion.
One does not have to receive communion to go to Heaven.
Whether one goes to Heaven or not is really between a person and
God, and no priest giving out Communion stops to ask each person
if that person has been to confession or believes in all the church teaches.
As I said, this is more a public matter of saying, “You’re not in our club.”
Forgive me for rambling.
For centuries when the church had temporal power, these gestures
had more ominous meaning.
Today they don’t have a whole lot of meaning.
But in Catholic teaching any repentant soul who approaches God
can be saved if he makes a pure act of contrition.
So no bishop can control who goes to heaven and hell.
And frankly they can’t control who goes to communion either,
unless they want to install video cameras and Catholic police in
every church in their diocese. It is very easy to go to a church
where you are not known and go to communion there.
In the final analysis, it has to do with the vote.
Bishops seek to say to the voters, “Hey, Kerry is not really Catholic,
so Catholics, don’t vote for him.” It works like that.

Posted by Jose Bague on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:16 PM (EST):

Anne:

The Bishop was not pressuring the Hospital to break any laws. There is no law that mandates hospitals to abort an unborn child because the Mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, at 11 weeks gestation. Under the law, this is a matter between the doctor and the patient. If the doctor does not want to abort, the patient can go to another docter.

Forcing Hospitals to abort unborn children is just bad public policy.

Posted by Kili on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:15 PM (EST):

“internal housekeeping”? BUNK! It is not “internal” when it involves affecting the care of those outside your “church”. There is nothing “internal” involved in dictating that a dying pregnant woman should not have her life save because it conflicts with your dogma. At 11 weeks the fetus could not have survived without the mother, the mother was dying. The question wasn’t one of elective abortion, it was whether or not to lose both mother and fetus, or to save the mother. The hospital rightly chose to save the life they could…. they had no viable option for saving both. That so many idiots are trying to turn that into an issue of elective abortion speaks for itself. And if the “church” was so interested in “internal housekeeping” they would have excommunicated the pedophile “priests” long ago, instead of enabling them. A group preys on children and gets a pass, but a Nun works to save a woman’s life and is excommunicated for it? Any respect I ever had for catholicism is just slipping away due to such twisted “values”.

@Anne Rice: To be clear, when you say “I am against abortion and always have been,” do you mean you believe elective abortion should be illegal?

Posted by Lance A on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:11 PM (EST):

I think the hospital should release a decree stripping the bishop of any association with the word “catholic.” It would carry the same weight as his grand pronouncement.

Posted by Everett on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:10 PM (EST):

May God bless Bishop Olmstead for this courageous act. As we can see even in these comments, there are many who are willfully ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church both as far as the canons regarding the use of the title “Catholic” and the moral principle of double effect. The good Bishop will no doubt be persecuted, and accused of going back to the Inquisition, when in fact the only thing he has done is made official the schism between CHW and the Church that already existed. This hospital can now proceed with all of its secular approaches to medicine without having to worry about the “pesky” moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

@Allison G, you’re strawmanning. I never said Catholic teaching couldn’t be explained; in fact, I implicitly indicated that I would be willing to explain it if necessary to a stranger in danger of death. I used the example of my wife not because it is “easy” but because it’s easy for others to throw around accusations of “comfortably folded arms” and “harsh do’s and don’t,” and I wanted to put myself on the same hook as anyone else. The subject matter is difficult enough without distorting one another’s words.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:04 PM (EST):

liseux,
I would say you are seeing the John Paul II generation slowly
destroy the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church in America.
The Roman Catholic Church can regain that credibility,
but it will take a new and thorough examination of the
questions we are discussing here.
i believe this will come.
There will be another revision of canon law
which is more sensitive to the problems of women in
reproductive crises, a revision that responds to what we
have discovered in the last hundred years.
But this will take time.

Posted by Abscissio on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:02 PM (EST):

Ms. Rice, are you saying that the Catholic bishops campaign of extortion extends to our elected officials? Please explain to me, since I am not Catholic, what, precisely does it mean to a Catholic to be barred from the sacraments?

Some of the bishops take their oversimplified theology into the political arena and publicly (from their tax-exempt properties) try to bar Catholic legislators from the sacraments if they do not adopt the bishops’ point of view. Catholic legislators are attacked if they believe that pregnant women, not the government, are best suited to make decisions on their pregnancies. No such sanctions are invoked against legislators who voted to attack Iraq even though modern war is abortifacient. Ninety percent of the casualties in modern war are civilians, many of them children and many of them pregnant women. Those who vote for that are still welcome at the communion rail.

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 6:01 PM (EST):

Jose,
I am against abortion and always have been.
I know that the bishop broke no law in revoking
the hospital’s official Catholic status.
But in pressuring the hospital to refuse life saving
treatment to women dying in reproductive crises
he was indeed pressuring the hospital to break the law
and to risk its license under American law.
This is a very complex issue.
And it does take some time to keep the issues straight.
But frankly I do think the effort is worth it.
So bear with me please.
This has never been about abortion.
It is about women—- the value of their lives, and their rights.
I applaud the hospital for standing up to the bishop.
I think they took a brave stand on the side of life.
They should not be lumped with those who provide abortion on demand.
That is another issue altogether.

Posted by Jose Bague on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 5:57 PM (EST):

Anne:

Bishop Olmsted did not break any laws over the removal of the Hospital’s Catholic status. The Bishop was only exercising the Church’s right under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Consitution to determine which hospital it should associate itself with. The Catholic Church did not send the Swiss Guard to force the Hospital to comply with Canon law. The Hospital in Phoenix is free to perform all the abortions it wants. Just do not expect the Hospital to enjoy official Catholic status.

You further appear to be in favor of having the Government force all Catholic Hospitals in the country to perform abortions. However, the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience under the 1st Amendment allows Catholic Hospitals to provide health care pursuant to Catholic health care practices.

I believe that if a person does not agree with Catholic health care practices, he or she should make the proper arrangements to receive treatment in a non-Catholic hospital.

Posted by PSR on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 5:57 PM (EST):

Bishop Olmsted, is that you?

Posted by Bobby C on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 5:56 PM (EST):

I am thankful we have Bishops like Bishop Olmstead. I have thanked him and I hope that he will continue to teach what it means to be Catholic whenever he has the chance.

For those happy with the outcome, because now the Hospital is outside of being “restricted” by ERDs, I do not know why you are so upset. You got what you wanted. Walk away happy. No amount of comments you agree or disagree with on a blog are going to change the Church’s mind, or those of CHW. If you believe the Church to be irrelevent and dying, move on. Do you really believe that your ranting will change anyone’s heart that agree with and trusts the CHurch and her respect for life?

Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 5:56 PM (EST):

This quote is from “Bishops versus Catholic Politicians” by Daniel C. Maguire, Professor of Moral Theology, published September 5, 2008, and easily found online.

“Some of the bishops take their oversimplified theology into the political arena and publicly (from their tax-exempt properties) try to bar Catholic legislators from the sacraments if they do not adopt the bishops’ point of view. Catholic legislators are attacked if they believe that pregnant women, not the government, are best suited to make decisions on their pregnancies. No such sanctions are invoked against legislators who voted to attack Iraq even though modern war is abortifacient. Ninety percent of the casualties in modern war are civilians, many of them children and many of them pregnant women. Those who vote for that are still welcome at the communion rail.”

I think this addresses the matter of how the Roman Catholic Church can
continue to work out nuanced arguments to support American Catholics
entering volunteer armed forces to serve in wars that involve the wholesale
death and destruction of innocent people,
but cannot work out a sound argument to allow
a dying woman to defend her life against a fatal and failing pregnancy.

The situation reeks of inconsistency and hypocrisy.

True, no one should take a human life ever. There should be no wars.
There should be no strife on earth at all.
But what we have is a Catholic tradition
that supports soldiers in putting themselves in a state of
moral helplessness by joining volunteer armies
to fight in wars that inevitably and invariably involve massive civilian
deaths,
but insists that only a pure, absolute and merciless morality
applies to a dying mother who cannot survive an ongoing pregnancy.

This is a double standard.
This is an invalid standard.
This is a hypocritical standard.

Arguments offered here that Sr. McBride did “evil” in
terminating this woman’s pregnancy, should be dismissed out of hand.

Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 5:55 PM (EST):

God bless Bishop Olmsted!

I encourage all faithful Catholics to visit his diocese’s website and thank him for his courage.

Roe v. Wade has been with us for 40+ bloody years, and battles like this will continue to happen, until like Dred Scott, this unjust law is overthrown.

Faithful Catholics, take heart! We are seeing the JPII generation of priests, bishops, and lay faithful stand up for the faith.

In John 6, Jesus told his disciples that to have eternal life, they would eat his Body and Drink his blood; some went away grumbling, “THIS IS A TOUGH TEACHING.”

And they left Jesus, and his Church. Sadly, this still happens today.

He didn’t go after them and tell them to compromise on the Truth.

God bless the Bishop, and God bless all the faithful posters here, especially Red_Beard for proclaiming the truth that one cannot kill an innocent being.

Posted by Allison G. on Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 5:53 PM (EST):

Turning this to your wife is an easy out. It’s the other people who make this so challenging. Should we really have moral principles and ethical guidelines that we expect others to abide by but are also impossible for us to explain? We’re talking about the immenent death of an innocent woman. She had to have been paralyzed with fear. She was told both would die without intervention, but she could be spared with intervention. In eaither case, the baby would die. Knowing that she knows that, how do you then swoop[ in and tell her, “Wait just one minute. I’m sorry to say, but…”

And to Abscissio, go away. Quit trying to hijack the conversation here.